User talk:Peter morrell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Intro
I live in the UK; have taught Biology for 30 years, just retired from full-time teaching, and have many active interests in for example, alternative medicine, Sociology, UK topography, oriental music, oriental religions, art, history of art and history of science and medicine...and just about anything else that takes my interest.

Articles I have created
Farndon, Nottinghamshire, Antiscience, Antireductionism, Harvey Warren Zorbaugh, Everett Stonequist, Louis Wirth, Professionalization, Frederic Thrasher, Jesse R. Pitts, John Weir, John Forbes, Eugène Galien-Laloue, Edouard Leon Cortes, Everett Hughes, Fiskerton, Nottinghamshire, Kelham, Hoveringham, East Stoke, Nottinghamshire, Society of the Sacred Mission, Thorpe, Nottinghamshire, Hockerton, Sibthorpe, Gonalston, Rolleston, Nottinghamshire, Cotham, Nottinghamshire, Scientific imperialism, Embourgeoisement, Affluentization

Articles I have contributed to
Arthur Berry, Seighford, Homeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann, Rupert Sheldrake, Ferdinand Toennies, Howard S. Becker, Robert E. Park, Charles Cooley, Georg Simmel, Radionics, Social exclusion, Marginalization, David Hockney, Kalachakra, Nihilism, Counterculture, Pseudoscience, Deviant behaviour, Scientism, Sierra Leone, Johannes Scotus Eriugena, Hippie, Rajneesh, Georges Sorel, River Manifold, Chicago school (sociology), Leonardo da Vinci, Graffiti, Banksy, Salvador Dalí, Harold MacMillan, Margaret Thatcher, Classical homeopathy, Mandala, Tim Marlow, John Berger, Ways of seeing, W. H. Auden, Peter Blake (artist), Augustus John, Gwen John, Camille Pissarro, Averham, Thurgarton, Gunthorpe, Nottinghamshire, Walter Hilton, Stoke Bardolph, Dylan Thomas, Elston, Bingham, Nottinghamshire, Allen Ginsberg, Stafford, East Bridgford, Kneeton, Buddha, Nidana, Bindu, Samatha meditation, Anapanasati, Jacob Epstein, Francis Bacon (painter), Dhyana, Brahmavihara, Paramita, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Impressionism, Alexander Rosenberg, Marsha Thomason, Surrealism

[edit] Welcome

If you have any questions, see the help pages, ask at the Village pump, or feel free to ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 21:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citing sources

I can see you've been working hard on the Arthur Berry article. There is a wiki style for adding references - take a look at WP:CITE and WP:CITE/ES. It looks hard work but once it's done if you add another source or reference then wiki will take care of the renumbering for you. Sophia 20:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Berry

Hello! I've added the image you uploaded into the Arthur Berry article. Details on image syntax can be found at WP:IMAGE and WP:EIS. Typically the format...

[[Image:Example.jpg|thumb|Your comment here!]]

is used, this produces what can be seen to the right. Note that by viewing the code of this page (by clicking "edit this page" at the top of the window, you can see that I placed the code for the image above this line, as this makes the image display to the right of the current paragraph.

I hope this has proved of some help to you. If you wish to reply, you can click "edit this page" and edit it like an article. Please sign your posts on talk pages using four tidles (~~~~). Thanks! --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 18:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks to Deskana for spotting the uploaded image and placing it for me; extremely kind of you. I hope it will be accepted under the category of fair use. Peter morrell 19:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. I just thought, incase you didn't realise, that I am the person you have been conversing with over email! --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 19:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Last evening I uploaded a photo of Berry from a book cover, but it has not yet appeared. Can anyone please assist in its eventual appearance on the article? thanks Peter morrell 05:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean Image:A_berry.JPG? I suggest reading the fair use tag closely here- this photo cannot be used for identification of the person in question, only "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question". You can use WP:IMAGE or WP:EIS to place the image in articles. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 10:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that Deskana, in which case I will soon add a short piece discussing that specific book and then use the picture! Peter morrell 07:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Peter, please don't be so quick in characterising me as a ranting zealot. If you're the historian who's published pieces on homeopathy on the web, I'd like to say that I've read some of these with great interest and enjoyment, and added links to them. Yes 'm a scientist, that's my POV and I declare it on the Talk pages so everyone understands where I'm coming from, but I try to keep it out of the articles I edit.Gleng 00:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, yes I am that person, and actually I trying to speak in general terms and am of course sorry for any offence caused to you personally. What is most remarkable to me and most immediately obvious is that hardly any of these major detractors of homeopathy, in this forum, have bothered to study it beyond the superficial level and yet they express such repulsive and strongly held views on a subject they very know little about. They have dismally failed to enter its mind-set in an open empathic way - which is the only way we come to know anything intimately. I will add a new reply later today and try to address the main points as I see them. Thanks for your input. Peter morrell 05:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No offence at all taken, I don't mind robust exchanges, but I thought it right to warn you that WP policy is we can criticise opinions but must be careful not to denigrate the people making them in any way. I genuinely enjoyed your articles and thought they were written quite beautifully. I am a scientist by any definition, as you will see via my user page. In fact the chair I hold is an established chair of "Experimental Physiology" - I am very much an experimental scientist. If you check through the log on homeopathy you will find from my history of edits to the article that almost without exception the changes I have made have been pro homeopathy, despite any POV I have. I admit that these are in the context of strong anti homeopathy edits. Nevertheless, I try. All opinions deserve to be listened to with respect, in my viewGleng 15:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for saying my articles are beautifully written! I try my best to write well, fluently and with clarity but sometimes perhaps with passion! Peter morrell 15:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I see that too! I do recall thinking that you would be an ideal WP contributor. Anyway, I'm keeping clear of homeopathy, from the article at least, though I might chip into the discussion occasionally. Finding a path to NPOV is always hard, we all have POV, and you will feel ganged up on occasionally, I try not to add to that. However V RS and patient logic is respected. Hope you stay and thrive here because you will enrich this crop of articles hugely. All the best.Gleng 19:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks Gareth for your kind words and general encouragement which I really appreciate. I will keep chipping away at stuff and hopefully not be too discouraged by any negative responses. thanks again. Peter morrell 20:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so you're going to be experiencing the many trials and fustrations of WP; I think the only way to enjoy it is to relax and keep your sense of humour and perspective, and you will find that there are plenty of people here who do respect views different to their own. However if you're not going to be endlessly frustrated it might be worth plotting a path through inevitable areas of conflict. I think your approach might be the key - history is important, fascinating, and leads to a more balanced understanding. The "conventional" scientific viewpoint is what it is, and the homeopathic perspective on this is also what it is, and both need to be reported honestly. In the end, an article here doesn't aim to draw conclusions, but just to characterise the disputes in a representative way. It's up to the reader to make their own mind up. I think it is true to say that the conventional scientific attitude is extreme scepticism for reasons that can be described. It's also true to say that homeopaths do not accept the validity, objectivity or relevance of this way of looking at homeopathy and take a different view. Both can be reported, it's not our job to decide between them fortunately. Anyway, just a word of advice - see your way to a strategy that everyone can feel results in a good article, and what is now conflict might just become fun.Gleng 09:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Gareth, I have a strategy of ignoring dead heads and responding only to rational and non-aggressive persons. I have more things to add to the article and the discussion in due course...as time permits! thanks again for your helpful advice. Peter morrell 09:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:A berry.JPG)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:A berry.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. feydey 13:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The image is orphaned because I was told that it can only be used if I discuss the actual book it comes from. I have not yet had time to do that. I plan to do that & might get time to do it soon. So it is OK leaving it orphaned for now. thanks Peter morrell 16:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

this image will be used very soon. thanks Peter morrell 09:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homeopathy

Maybe you would like to explain why you have blocked me from the homeopathy discussion? Peter morrell 16:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you would like to explain why you think I have to do anything with this? `'mikka (t) 17:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Because when I tried to send a new message is said I was blocked from the discussion by YOU! why else do you think? are you denying you had anything whatsoever to do with it? or has someone used your name as a joke? If it is an error then of course I apologise unreservedly. Peter morrell 19:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, relax. It was likely an autoblocking problem as nothing is shown in your block log. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 19:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is the evidence: Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Mikkalai for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Recurring vandal Your IP address is 213.40.131.66.

I am STILL blocked Thanks for that! me a recurring vandal? get real Peter morrell 09:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Mikalai blocked User:213.40.131.66 for edits like this and this. This IP address has been blocked before, and thus is a returning vandal. Unfortunately, it appears you use this IP address to browse Wikipedia. This means that even if you're logged in, you still won't be able to edit. Since you've provided me with your IP address, I've unblocked it for you. Everything should be good to go. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 09:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks old chap, old fruit hic hic cheers! Peter morrell 09:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your visible and invisible work on homeopathy especially the support you give me on trying to reach a new consensus. Please continue --Homy 10:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR

Peter you need to read the policy above - please be aware that using other accounts or Ip addresses to gain more reverts is considered sockpuppetry and not allowed. Sophia 19:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Your last revert of Antiscience was 10 minutes after I made you aware of the 3RR policy. You must stop reverting or you will be reported at WP:AN/3RR and may be blocked. Sophia 19:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think Alienus' changes were rather abrupt and made with no discussion, simply calling them POV, and saying therefore his changes were non-negotiable. Reading the talk page, I don't clearly understand where the disagreement lies, so it's hard for me to weigh in. ^^James^^ 20:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what Alienus calls/thinks about Peter's changes, WP:3RR is clear. Peter did violate 3RR if that IP is his. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 20:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

True. Peter, I would advise sticking to the talk page for a while. Either that, or we can discuss in a couple days after your block expires! ;) ^^James^^ 21:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

James you are right mate! and he knows nothing about the subject under review...saying it is religious and anti-intellectual. How fatuous is that? he is a moron plain and simple, sorry but that is how it is and he brought the house down on himself. he is arrogant and inflexible and will not discuss things before he acts rashly. he has hacked it to pieces and ruined what was a promising article. but then I would say that wouldn't I? Sophia I am not that precious about my stuff but I do happen to know what antiscience is. Peter morrell 20:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You have been disrupting Wikipedia recently on the Antiscience article, possibly violating the three revert rule and blanking the article. You are being invited to stop this disruptive behaivour. Disruption of the functioning of Wikipedia is a blockable offense under the blocking policy. If you do not stop, you may be temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 21:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, Peter, I advise you stay away from the Antiscience article for a while, and come back later. Blocking will stop the disruption temporarily, but I would rather not do this. Please consider the opinions of others without blanking the article or violating the three revert rule. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 21:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Reading the current version, the anti-intellectual and relgious labels are only used in the beginning to discuss how the term "antiscience" has been applied, and to distinguish what is meant by the term for the purposes of the article. ^^James^^ 21:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

yes I will let things lie for a while. thanks Peter morrell 21:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Good. Try a nice cup of tea and a sit down! --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 21:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links to your own material

Hi. You need to stop inserting links to your own sites. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

what is the fundamental nature of your objection? is this disallowed? Peter morrell 14:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:SPAM for more information. Sites created for commercial advertising detract from the "free encyclopedia" that Wikipedia strives to be. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 14:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's why I avoid the {{spam}} tag for things like this; it's not a commercial site. See rather Wikipedia:External links#Links to normally avoid: A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article.. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks for clarifying that, i will do as you say and see what gives. It is not a commercial site nor are either owned or run by me. thx again Peter morrell 15:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

One can assume, for the sake of discussion, that this guideline also refers to pointers to articles you wrote on sites other people control; I'm going to suggest that be clarified in the guidelines. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

OK but again what is the basic issue with citing one's own work? why is it questionable? Peter morrell 16:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the relevant language from WP:EL: Because of neutrality & point-of-view concerns, a primary policy of Wikipedia is that no one from a particular site/organization should post links to that organization/site etc. Because neutrality is such an important -- and difficult -- objective at Wikipedia, this takes precedence over other policies defining what should be linked. The accepted procedure is to post the proposed links in the Talk section of the article, and let other - neutral - Wikipedia editors decide whether or not it should be included. It's not that the links may not be in the article; rather, it's that you yourself shouldn't decide that they should be in the article, since you can't have a neutral point of view about its suitablity. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

super! many thanks that is as clear as a bell! I posted the links on the talk pages as you suggested for folks to decide, which is fine by me. Peter morrell 17:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] e-mail problem

You seem to be having difficulty recieving my e-mail. I can get mail from your account, but you don't seem to be getting my replies. Is this a problem with a supanet spam fliter? --TimVickers 18:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect user page?

Hi Peter, You may want to consider redirecting your user page to your talk page. This is what I do since I am not a big fan of user pages. The advantage is that you name will not appear as a red link. The red link gives you the look of someone that does not know the ropes and has only been editing for a short period. i don't think this is a good refelction of your contributions. Another possible solution is to use [[User talk:Peter morrell|Peter morrell]] as a signature. No big deal, just thought you might be interested in other options. David D. (Talk) 18:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

At the top of the page you can see a preferences option. Here you can customise your signature to anything you like. I think you must currently have the default signature. Make sure you have the 'raw signature' box ticked too.

Alternatively, if you prefer to leave the siganture the way it is now, you can redirect your user page to your talk page by adding the following 'wiki markup' to your user page: #redirect [[User talk:Peter morrell]] . i hope this is helpful, David D. (Talk) 19:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Next step is to cut and paste the following:

[[User talk:Peter morrell|Peter morrell]]

Into the window above the box you just ticked. Then you should get a blue link for your signature that directs people to your talk page rather than your user page. i remember when I first started here I was confused by the signature stuff too, either we're both dim or (this is my favoured reason) it's not so intuitive. David D. (Talk) 19:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Peter, it looks good to me. Only the new signatures will have the new format. The old ones will remain red since you have no user page. If you want the old ones to be blue too, as well as direct to your talk page, you will have to create the user page and do the redirect as I described above. David D. (Talk) 19:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homeopathy usage data

Somebody objected to the bit about homeopathy increasing in popularity and being recommended by doctors. I checked the references and one did not refer to homeopathy at all and the other only mentioned alternative medicine in general. Is there any good data anywhere (preferably on a disinterested website) about the rates of usage of homeopathic remedies?--TimVickers 21:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I found some references, but no clear figures on whether homeopathy usage is changing. At the moment I have changed it to simply saying that alternative medicine is popular and referencing a study in the US and one in Europe. It's first-world bias I know.--TimVickers 23:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Message from Founders4

No problem,Peter. Hope to see your additions to the Counterculture article.Founders4 09:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Do not make personal attacks against other edits. edit is completely out of line. Please read and adhere to Wikipedia's civility policy. Jefffire 15:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Counterculture edit

Hi Peter,

Nice additions. I did tighten things up a bit, especially with respect to multiple references to time. The first sentence seemed a bit overworked, so I dropped "perhaps in a hidden or dormant state" since this seems somewhat an extraneous thought.

Where you list "ethos, hopes, aspirations, wishes and dreams," I dropped "wishes." Seemed like too many very similar elements, and you might consider eliminating one more, perhaps "hopes."

Also tightened up the other section paragraphs as well in order to integrate what they say with your additions.

In any case, see what you think.Founders4 10:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zeitgeist and other edits

Hi Peter,

I'm hesitant to comment too extensively on your recent additions to the "Counterculture" intro, as I don't want to cramp your style. However, one trick to keeping the tone of Wikipedia articles encyclopedic is to keep most of the writing in the past tense; you will notice that most of the article consists of statements about what happened in the past.

Brief exceptions to this "past tense" rule are fine, as long as they serve to define a term or succinctly explain something. But it has to be kept brief in order to avoid too significant a digression into philosophizing.

With this in mind, some comments on your most recent edits:

-"Although distinct countercultural elements can be discerned in any society at virtually any time, usually as minor undercurrents, here the term counterculture refers to a time period when these forces grow into a definite movement and become numerically much more visible."

With the addition of a new parenthetical clause,"usually as minor undercurrents," the sentence becomes a bit overworked. Also, "numerically" tends to detract, rather than add, to your meaning because some forces to which you refer cannot be measured numerically. In any case when you say such forces "become much more visible," that covers it pretty well. Since most good editing follows the "less is more" philosophy, I might suggest the following:

"Although distinct countercultural undercurrents can be discerned in any society at virtually any time, here the term counterculture refers to a period when these forces grow into a definite movement and become more visible."

Please note that in this suggested edit, I eliminated words that do not add signficant meaning ("much," for example), since brevity is the key. When sentences become too wordy, or they become overworked, readers lose patience.

-"Countercultural movements can remain 'dormant for so long, only to explode at a given time,' [1] when a critical mass has been reached and then suddenly they seem to erupt onto the scene as if from nowhere: 'Social movements don't erupt from individuals, and individuals don't have ideas that are solely theirs. We are all shaped and influenced by our social conditions; our sense of what's possible and what we do about it is shaped in action with each other.' [2]"

These quotes are interesting, and it might be possible to include them in another part of the article without running the danger of philosophizing. Perhaps a separate heading entitled "The Philosophy of Counterculture" with an introductory sentence in the past tense, though to retain encyclopedic tone and keep reader interest, this separate heading would have to come much further on in the article. In the intro, I think it's too much.

-"A counterculture movement then seems to encapsulate the ethos, hopes, aspirations and dreams of a distinct proportion of the populace for the time period in question; it is thus a form of zeitgeist."

The addition of "zeitgeist" here is great. It adds a concept and allows readers to pursue a new line of inquiry if they wish. In keeping with my previous suggestion, I might try to simplify the sentence:

"A counterculture movement encapsulates the ethos, aspirations and dreams of a distinct population during a specific period of time; it is thus a form of zeitgeist."

Please note that I substituted "a distinct population" for "a distinct proportion of the populace" because the latter requires further definition as to which "populace" we might be referring. The former is general, and more brief.

Anyway, these are my thoughts. I haven't changed anything yet; wanted to communicate with you first. My intent here is to inspire effective, lean writing that doesn't depart too far from an encyclopedic tone. When you write about the Celts and their counterculture status with respect to the "Holy Roman Empire," you'll need to keep this in mind. My editing may be bold, but other editors here can be ruthless!

All my best. Founders4 20:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are completely right, sober reflections triumph! please implement your imporvements, best Peter Peter morrell 23:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Peter. Thanks for being open to considering some alternatives. I notice that the most recent changes add more words, and you retain some of the problematic sentences, so I may not be communicating effectively. Some specific problems:

-The first sentence now incorporates a much longer list, " values, beliefs, attitudes, behaviour and/or norms," and thus becomes overworked. Since "values" are somewhat inclusive of "beliefs" and "attitudes," I think the latter two can be dropped. Also "norms of behavior" might work; I'll try it out.

-The second sentence is now pretty cumbersome, "Although distinct countercultural elements can be discerned as undercurrents in any society at virtually any time, here the term counterculture refers to a time period when these forces crystallise into a definite movement and become much more socially visible." I would suggest instead, "Although distinct countercultural undercurrents exist in all societies, here the term counterculture refers to a period when such forces become more visible." I'll try something like this out as well, though of course it may have to be further integrated into the paragraph. BTW, I don't know that "socially visible" works; how is this different than simply "visible"?

-As I've mentioned before, I think the next two sentences need to move to another section dealing with "counterculture philosophy." Otherwise the intro moves beyond defining terms and waxes too philosophical. Personal expounding runs counter to the mission of maintaining encyclopedic tone.

-The last sentence now reads "Often being a generational phenomenon, a counterculture movement then comes to encapsulate the ethos, aspirations and dreams of a social world for a certain time, and can thus be seen as a zeitgeist." "Often being a generational phenonenon" is rather awkward passive phraseology. Also I'm not clear on how a movement "encapsulates" something. And the term "a social world" does not create a clear image in my mind. I'll try something else, not sure what at present.

Hope this process isn't too discouraging. Usually I just edit rather than explain myself, but you seen to want to become a serious editor. I might suggest, if you haven't already read it, that you take a look at Strunk and White's THE ELEMENTS OF STYLE, which has now been a classic for generations of aspiring writers.

Toward excellence in writing. Founders4 09:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, did as you suggest; please tell me what you think. What I usually find is that this collaborative process ends up producing a better result than any of the parties could have achieved as individuals. Your addition of "zeitgeist" is a case in point. "Counterculture" as "a manifestation of 'zeitgeist' would not have emerged without your contribution, and I think it's very good. Thanks! Founders4 10:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future discussion of "Zeitgeist," Philosophical Underpinnings of Counterculture Movements, and Celtic Counterculture

Hi Peter,

A few thoughts.

ZEITGEIST

One interesting thing about the Zeitgeist that prevailed during the mid-1960's is that it was a worldwide phenomenon. In the People's Republic of China, for example, the Cultural Revolution began in 1966 when Mao encouraged teenagers and very young adults to pretty much take over the country--with disastrous results. Perhaps 30 million people died of starvation and abuse during this period.

Simultaneous with this development in the PRC, the U.S. counterculture really began to take hold. I first attended Berkeley in 1964 during the "Free Speech Movement;" participated in the creation of the very first "hippie" event at San Francisco's Longshoreman's Hall in January, 1966; was called down to the Oakland Induction Center to serve in Vietnam in May, 1966; planted trees, grass and shrubs at the inauguration of People's Park on April 20, 1969; and was appalled to see a good friend, Alan Blanchard, permanently blinded by buckshot when Governor Reagan sent troops into Berkeley on May 15, 1969.

During this entire period I was extremely critical of the older generation whose responsibility it was to run the U.S.--President Johnson, Secretary of Defense McNamara, President Nixon and then Governor of California, Ronald Reagan, seemed to me to be villains. Yet I have to acknowledge that, compared with Mao, the leaders I so reviled were actually quite competent. The simple fact is that they realized THEY COULD NOT ALLOW THE NEXT GENERATION TO TAKE OVER PREMATURELY! Reagan, especially, understood this, and however much I objected at the time, I have to acknowledge that his screw-ups were minor compared to Mao's.

PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF COUNTERCULTURE MOVEMENTS

This actually could use an entire page of its own, with a link to the "Counterculture" page. I'm sure a lot has been written, some of which you introduced this week. Would be very interesting to me to see this issue discussed and developed.

CELTIC COUNTERCULTURE

Just read the Wikipedia article on the Celts and found it very informative. The book I mentioned previously goes much more into the battle that prevailed between the individualistic Celts and the much more regimented Roman Empire, with the centralized Roman Catholic Church slaughtering several million Celts and prevailing over the Celtic Churches. I hope you will be able to relate some of this historical base when you write your piece on the roots of U.K. counterculture, since Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall and the Isle of Man were places where remnants of Celtic culture survived and inspired some aspects of the 60s counterculture.

Anyway, thanks for listening. Founders4 10:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction by name, editing

Hi Peter,

Walter here, a very nineteenth century name handed down from my father and both great-grandfathers. My descent is typically American: English, Irish, Welsh, German, Ashkenazie Jew, Native American and American Black. My wife is Chinese, though the aunts on her father's side have reddish hair inherited from a Portuguese sailor who hooked up with one of the grandmothers in their native Macau. So my kids literally have everything.

Sorry about the brutal editing, though I'm pretty even-handed and submit my own stuff to the same scrutiny. What I don't catch, others will, so we Wikians tend to discipline ourselves after a while.

I'd like to provide an e-mail address, which will facilitate our communication. It's kensingtonguy4(at)yahoo.com. As you move forward with your writing, I'll be very curious to see what you come up with. Founders4 22:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Great additions to the "Counterculture" bibliography. Would really like to read some of these. Founders4 22:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I cut the @ symbol from the above address so it won't get harvested by spam e-mail 'bots. --TimVickers 23:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Consider this an official warning. Describing good faith edits as vandalism, and calling editors "arrogant" is far from appropriate behaviour. We are expected to be civil and assume good faith, and you are doing neither. You are making good edits, which is why I am surprised at your behaviour on the talk pages. If you continue in this manner you will be blocked by an admin. Jefffire 13:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Well done Peter.

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		The extent of your expert contributions is amazing. Keep up the good work! TimVickers 02:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second opinion requested

Hi Tim and Peter, I am wondering if you could both inject a second opinion with respect to an ongoing discussion at the Stephen Barrett page. I have chosen to seek your opinion since you both represent differing views with respect to alternative medicine but are both reasonable editors, as proven by your excellent collaboration on the homeopathy page. I would like you to focus on one paragraph only. It is in the Licensure_and_credentials and reads as follows:

• Barrett's critics cite that he failed part of his medical board certification exams in 1967 and never retook them as evidence that he cannot claim to be a medical expert.[1] When Barrett retired in 1993 about 81% of physicians were Board certified according to the American Board of Medical Specialties.(PDF).

There are two schools of thought here: The first is that the latter sentence is relevant to whether Barratt is a medical expert. It is verifiable data, no claim is made that the data supports the views of the critics or not, that is up to the reader.

The second is that the latter sentence should be removed since it seems to be original research.

There has been much discussion on this topic both currently and in the archive, one of many sections in the archive is here. I feel the discussion has reached a stalemate, although, possibly an injection of new ideas could lay this to bed so we can move onto other parts of the article. Thanks for your time. David D. (Talk) 17:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all. Thanks for leaving the message. David D. (Talk) 15:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Peter. I fully understand why you do not want to be involved and agree. People like Barrett have a very narrow understanding of issues that require greater awareness and knowledge. There are a number of anti-quackery editors involved with this article who are constantly trying to remove information not favorable to Barrett. It is only by having uncontrovertible proof that it can remain and even then. All the best and keep up your good work in the homeopathy article. One day science will catch up as they discover that there is more to matter than is known by science today. NATTO 03:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Limitations of a mind bound to matter

Peter, sadly your analysis is correct. Science in itself is only a tool with it's limitations. It is a valid tool as long as it is used properly. There are those in search of dogmatism that have made it a religion in the same way that they have used other religions in the past to negate true awareness and spiritual growth. Stay above the fray Peter :-) NATTO 16:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vithoulkas and miasms

You say you are historian of homeopathy. The science of homeopathy, Vithoulkas chapter 9: To be sure, Psora, Syphilis and Sycocis are major influences which are seen in daily practice. The whole chapter discuss the advantage of miasms, so I don't understand your remark or source you used at classical homeopathy. --FredRoter 16:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bye

Sorry to see homeopathy being wrecked after your hard work. Good luck; I'm gone from WP. See [2]Gleng 14:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In Response to your Message

Hi. Thanks for your message. I got the Tim Marlow pic by going to the site on the external links, and finding a picture. I saved it onto my pictures, and then uploaded it onto wikipedia. A tuotorial should help. [3] October 2006User:Midnightblueowl

I did add the copyright when uploading the image. I am fairly new to uploading pictures so maybe that was a mistake but I don't really know. [4] October 2006User:Midnightblueowl

[edit] Charge of vandalism

Please see the Augustus John discussion page regarding your charge of vandalism. JNW 12:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• I am glad that you are happy with the outcome. Best of luck in your future endeavors. JNW 20:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you so much for the barnstar. I heartily agree with your rewarding one to Celithemis, who stepped in with such cool-headed finesse. Under the heading of what I learned: that we all can be sensitive to criticism; to take perceived slights neither personally nor seriously; and finally, to have fun doing this, because a little ways down the road all the brilliant corrections, additions, and subtractions we make will be reversed and erased by someone else, anyway. Best wishes, and keep on contributing. JNW 01:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gwen John

After looking at The Convalescent and The Precious Book, I thought that even though they're both lovely, they're fairly similar poses, so I went with one of the cat pictures instead to show a bit more of her range.

To justify our claim to use these copyrighted images as "fair use," there should really be text about them -- some kind of commentary or analysis. I'll make a stab at it when I get a chance. —Celithemis 03:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding images

Please refer to Uploading images for instructions on how to add images to Wikipedia. —Celithemis 10:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Thurgatonpriory1726.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Thurgatonpriory1726.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• I noticed this bot message, so I went ahead and tagged the image as public domain (since it's 280 years old). The easiest way to get the copyright tags applied is usually to pick from the "Licensing:" dropdown when you upload the message -- that will insert the correct tag automatically. —Celithemis 21:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starting new pages

There's a form you can use on Help:Starting a new page, but rather than have to relocate that page each time, what I do is just type the title of the new page into the search form. The search results page will say "you searched for" followed by a redlink. Click the redlink and you'll be taken to a page where you can start editing the new article. —Celithemis 21:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Thurgatonpriory1726.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Thurgatonpriory1726.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This does not really have anything to do with tags, it's just that the image's description page currently does not state who created the image, and where it is from. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's perfect. Thank you. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 17:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding new parish/town articles

Thanks for adding all these new articles. Two quick suggestions - it's helpful to add a stub tag to the bottom of short articles that are just beginning, and also it's generally frowned upon to paste large blocks of primary source text into an article. A couple of these new ones seem to be nothing but a block of primary source text from this 1853 guidebook. In general, this is the sort of thing that might lead other editors to simply nominate the articles for deletion. Sorry if I'm telling you something you already know! --Dmz5 07:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Classical homeopathy

hello, I am Pernambuco, I have made some edits on Classical homeopathy and also have worked with Debbe (she is another user and a practioner of C.L.) but the article needs a lot of work, and I mean a lot, so if you want to come back and help, that would be very good, thank you in advance Pernambuco 21:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

yes, correct, I wanted to reply on your page and not mine, I just forgot. But by the way, i agree with a lot of what you say, I have had the same experience, but I will try to make it better and see if the strong headed "pigs" like you say will accept it sooner or later, I hope so because if not then it is just a big waste of time Pernambuco 14:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uploading images

Hello again. I put some advice on uploading images on my talk page in response to your question. I see that you've uploaded images successfully, and I think the only thing you need to know is that under Licensing (use the dropdown menu), simply choose something like "You created this yourself and release it into the public domain" (not the exact phrasing, but you'll find it). That should solve all problems. Macspaunday 00:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Peter

Hi again, long time no talk. I moved away from homoeopathy and I've been burying myself in science stuff for a while, I hope you are doing well. I'm writing to you as I am currently a candidate for administrator and think the perspective of people from outside my subject area is vital if I am going to serve the wider community effectively. If you wish to comment, the nomination page is here. Thanks. TimVickers 06:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be great. TimVickers 15:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

Your edit to Natural Selection was POV and full of weasel words in contradiction of scientific concensus. Please see the articles talk page where your edit has been fully discussed. --Michael Johnson 21:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There has been a full explanation as to where you were wrong on the talk page, and I have neither the time nor inclination to get into a debate with you. Weasel words in this context are unnessisary qualifiers. Trying to introduce qualifiers into evolution related articles is a tactic of creationists and ID proponents. If you are interested in contributing constructively to evolution related articles you would be advised to discuss edits on the talk page first. --Michael Johnson 22:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, pathetic, hu? And can't spell - well that's news! Bet you were one of those teachers who marked down for messy writing too, just as well I'm typing!

Firstly lets be clear, I do not edit Natural Selection. The editors are not "my Mafia". Natural Selection is just one of a number of articles I watch for vandalism. And discussion of the article is best conducted on the article talk page, not on personal talk pages.

What you do not seem to comprehend is that truth does not matter on Wikipedia, verifiability does. You did not verify your edits. Not one reference to support your contention, which as you freely admit flies in the face of one of the cornerstones of biology. More, on the talk page you make it clear this is a pet idea of yours, in effect at best original research. You may well be right, heck, you may be the new Charles Darwin for all I know. But unless you can verify, your edits do not belong on Wikipedia. Sure, you might get away with it on articles about London Undergroud stations or natural histories of members of the Estrildidae. But not on controversial articles such as Natural Selection.

And I did not accuse you of being a creationist, but stated that your edit was typical of creationist edits on evolution-related articles. Actually creationist tactics range from blanking the page and leaving messeges like "God will send you to hell" though to consistant trolling on talk pages. More intellegent creationists attempt to introduce qualifiers into articles, that this is "just a theory", and then argue that creationism or ID is also "just a theory" so lets present the controversy. This, BTW, is the strategy of the Discovery Institute, as outlined in their Wedge strategy. The frequent attacks on evolution=related articles by creationists is the reason edits such as yours immediatly come to the attention of other editors, and the reason I suggested you take proposed edits up on the talk pages first. This is especially so given you are unknown on these pages.

--Michael Johnson 00:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Courteous reply

Yer, well my nice side got the better of me. --Michael Johnson 11:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"a bit rich to ask for reliable refs to support my contention" You yourself said that natural selection is a corner stone of biology. That means that most authors would see it as self evident, hardly requiring references. If I wanted to attack a cornerstone, I would certainly make sure I had not just adequate but excessive evidence. Otherwise I would most likely be laughed out of court, which is what happened to you. --Michael Johnson 12:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you are right - I mistook your quoting of the article for your own words. But the point remains. Good luck with your hunt. BTW I can think of three examples of natural selection that has been observed in wild vertebrate populations, for what it is worth. Cheers, --Michael Johnson 04:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I mean when, over several generations, changes occur within a population of animals to better adapt them for their enviroment. --Michael Johnson 07:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

1. European sparrows introduced to the Boston area from Britain during the colonial era were the large plump birds found in the UK. As they spread south they became smaller and skinnier, reflecting the European distribution, and complying with Bergmann's Rule.

2. Budgerigars released or escaped in Florida have thrived and form feral flocks. Over several generations the birds return to a green similar but not identical to the original wild birds.

3. Feral cats in outback Australia have evolved into animals more than twice the size and weight of their domestic ancesters and with a uniform grey coat, usually with brownish tiger stripes.

--Michael Johnson 09:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you really understand natural selection or the scientific process. In science nothing is "conclusively proved", anything is open to change given better infomation. Further natural selection is in fact species plasticity and reversible adaptive change. Natural selection is change in a species adapting to external pressures. The budgies would no doubt start producing the various colour mutations in Florida if preditor pressure was removed. Indeed the Aussie wild population would too. To me I think these are clear examples of natural selection and it is up to you to explain how they are not. --Michael Johnson 21:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry now you are changing the rules. Natural selection is, according to the article, the process by which favorable traits that are heritable propagate throughout a reproductive population: individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with unfavorable traits. If these traits have a genetic basis, then the genotypes associated with the favored traits will increase in frequency in the next generation.. These three examples cleary demonstrate this. The article then goes on to state: Given enough time, this passive process results in adaptations and speciation. Well cleary it results in adaption. You can argue there is no proof that it results in speciation, but that is an argument against evolution of species, not natural selection per se. Natural selection clearly operates within species, so you cannot say natural selection does not occur. If you want to argue that natural selection does not cause speciation, then that is a different issue. You might find some support from creationists, but in my experience most creationists would certainly accept natural selection within species, and indeed many up to Family level. That is how they explain the number of animals on Noah's Ark, they see a family "head" on the ark from which closely related species evolve. They call it the doctrine of kinds. So even on that you would be pretty much out there alone. --Michael Johnson 23:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Further: Natural selection is a process, that can be observed. We understand the mechinism as to how it works, ie, genetics. Darwin did use it to explain how species might evolve, but if your objective is to undermine evolution, I don't think you can do it by attacking natural selection. BTW good species don't have to be mutually infertile. --Michael Johnson 23:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry cant see any points you are making except for some vague assertions about murder and homicide. Clearly I an not of the same exalted intelect as you. Seems pointless continuing the discussion. --Michael Johnson 11:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arr...

Eh, well, I know you're capable of doing good work, but you have been very accusatory on a lot of talk pages - notably Natural Selection - with views far from the scientifically supported ones. I don't mean to attack you, but you did attack the other fellow a bit unfairly. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

An apology can't hurt - I'm not saying what they did was right, but with such a contentious subject as homeopathy, you have to presume that people are going to have pretty strong opinions that may lead to somewhat rash judgement. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Natural Selection

Aye, and I'm sorry I went too far in describing you - I'm afraid that we have had rather a lot of genuine trolls around the evolution-related pages, and after a while you get a little over-sensitive. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, we can talk. I'm studying biology, so it's always useful to discuss things - good way to get some easy studying in by pointing up if there's anything you don't understand. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Illness

You do realise that today marks two months of University missed due to illness, right? Because it's not just you I'm being forced to ignore. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific imperialism

I nominated this article, which you created and of which you have been the sole editor, for deletion. Your input would be greatly appreciated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific imperialism. Thanks! Skinwalker 13:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am of course an unabashed imperialist, anti-antireductionist, and skewerer of holistic methodology wherever it is found. Now, to be serious, the article in question comes across as a personal screed, which is unsupported by the references cited. In particular, the article cites Wilmhurst who titles his article "scientific imperialism" but nowhere elaborates on the definition of the term. It looks like someone did a google/isi/lexisnexis search for "scientific imperialism" and cited the most popular hits. Furthermore, a blog called "The Madness of Scientists" is used as a source; being a blog, this fails WP:RS. The section entitled "Marginalised" does not cite a single reference, even. The basic thrust of the article is better covered at Anti-science, Politicization of science, Paul Feyerabend, Sociology of scientific knowledge, pseudoskepticism and others. It's not like I'm trying to squelch a viewpoint - if I was I'd be attacking those articles. I doubt we can find enough reliable sources to make scientific imperialism a neutral and worthwhile article. Anyway, I see you haven't voted at the AFD - please do so, I'd like to see a good debate over this. Cheers, Skinwalker 22:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of "Yuppies" in Berkeley

Hi Peter,

Thanks for the heads up. Yes, that is a very funny (and very accurate) piece. The person who wrote it obviously has spent time in Berkeley and knows the scene well. Apostle12 17:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright issue with Hockerton

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Hockerton, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/NTT/Hockerton/index.html. As a copyright violation, Hockerton appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Hockerton has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Hockerton and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Hockerton with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Hockerton.

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Jerry 19:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new wikiproject

I've noticed your edits on some of the homeopathy pages. I'm drafting a wikiproject on homeopathy here. Are you interested in helping out with the draft before it goes live? If so, please jump in. Abridged ^talk 21:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I am quite quite sorry you won't be joining. My intent was to move away from any debate about the scientific merits of homeopathy (and edit wars based on the debate) to just improving the articles. Right now there aren't too many articles, and many subtopics (like miasms for example) just redirect to the main article when they should have an article of their own. I have done a few biographies so far--Robin Murphy, Luc De Schepper, and improved Nash. Please put the group on your watchlist anyway, and consider reconsidering. Abridged ^talk 18:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

PS, here is your formal invitation to the group so you have a link to the non draft page:

You are invited to join the Homeopathy WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Homeopathy. Please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Don't delay---the first 25 members will receive this beautfiul toaster  !!!

Abridged ^talk 19:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)