Talk:Margaret Singer/Archive 1

message: "cult expert" "expert Brainwashing" are value judgements that have to be attributed to a reliable source. An obituary is not a reliable source. If there are reliable sources that call her an expert on anything, we can add it. We can also add at the same time, the controvery and critique that she withstood during her life. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTE: First of all, as you are a Wikipedia Administrator, I will acquiesce to your decree.  I will NOT go past 3RR.  However, a search of "cult expert" and "margaret singer" on Google yields 1,100 hits.  Surely you must see from a simple perusal of these hits that Dr. Singer is widely regarded as such.  However, I have duly changed the infobox to simply read Author, Cults in Our Midst.  As you wish, User:Jossi...  Yours, Smeelgova 00:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A question, why are obituaries not considered reliable sources?  Yours, Smeelgova 00:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Me too. An obituary is usually a good friendly summary of a person's life. Margaret Singer was indeed a cult expert. --Tilman 16:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cult expert

message: Please see WP:STYLE for guidelines on how to use titles and honorifics. Also note that the same apply to article names. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Duly noted.  Why are nationally published obituaries not reliable sources, just out of curiosity?  Yours, Smeelgova 00:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because obituaries tend to be hagiographic in nature, for obvious reasons. Singer was quite prominent during the 70's and the 80's, some considered her an expert, some considered  her just about the opposite. That is why it is better to keep the infobox as simple as possible with just facts, and leave the opinions to be descibed in the body of the article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be so, but then you might say that WP:BLP also calls for a slightly hagiographic language. --Tilman 16:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of titles 

message: Was Singer an APA director? Which year? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  APA director 

message: Please do not delete my edits! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You posted verbatim in duplicate what was already listed below.  Don't see the need to have the exact same information in two sections.  Thanks for using "please", but please don't use the exclamation point, assume good faith at first.  Smeelgova 21:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you see the need to have the exact same info in 2 sections of the article?  Just say to the reader, "this is discussed in detail below at...".  Smeelgova 21:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Why do you keep reverting my edits STOP! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Smeelgova, you make it very difficult, if not impossible, to assume good faith. I had to stop editing other articles because I got exhausted in dealing with your editing style. Please do not delete material without asking first. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Why do you keep yelling at me like that and not assuming good faith first STOP! Smeelgova 22:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: User:Jossi, the EXACT SAME INFORMATION was in two sections.  Because I will not revert you three times, I hope you noticed that I removed it from the bottom section  and not the contentious top section.  Couldn't you see that the info about that Judge's decision was duplicated in two spots?  Smeelgova 22:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you can at least admit that you had erroneously duplicated the exact same information in two sections of the article.  Smeelgova 22:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The material was not duplicated. I provided a new source. You could have asked before reverting. Couldn't you? In any case, I have more material to add to the article, specifically info about Kropinsky v. World Plan Executive Council and Robin George v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness of California in which Singer provided testimony that was also dismissed by the court  citing the lack of acceptance of her theories. These cases took place before  the United States v. Fishman case. But I will wait until you and Tanaats get a chance to add other material that is not negative, if you find any, that is. I will add the new material in the weekend. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And you could have questioned my edits here on the talk page, without an exclamation point, bold, AND CAPS YELLING AT ME.  As stated before, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  The nicer you are to others on Wikipedia, the kinder they will be to you - and the more likely they will be to incorporate some of your suggestions.  And I have taken many of your suggestions to heart in the past, believe it or not.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 22:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. That is no the way it works. I added material that was well sourced and you revert it without even asking. Then you proceed to delete or change each one of my edits. That lack of respect for a fellow editor's work is unacceptable.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is how it works.  You treat others with respect, and they will treat you with respect.  If you continue to use EXCLAMATION POINTS, BOLD AND CAPS then I will not respond that well to your future suggestions.  If you have more patience and use more kind words - then I most certainly well.  It is that simple.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 01:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are the reverter, the burden is in you to behave. Yes, I should not react as I did, but that does not mean that you are entitled to skirt your responsibility in the matter. Had you not reverted almost all the edits I made today, this whole thing would not have happened. And you continue doing it. Assume good faith, you say? Yes, we assume the good faith of new editors, but after that you need to earn it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Suffice it to say that you will find me quite difficult to work with if you do not act kindly and in a manner of politeness as you would want others to act towards you.  If you continue to yell at me and reprimand me in such a manner when I have not violated 3RR, and use bold, caps and exclamation points to try to get your point - there is very, very little chance that I or any other editor for that matter will want to take heed to your suggestions.  But if you use reason and politeness, I most certainly will listen and do my best to engage you in polite discussion on the talk pages.  And I am insulted by your insinuation that I am "joking".  Yes, it is most hurtful to be dealt with in this manner.  Smeelgova 03:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I will resume editing this article on Sunday. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is becoming ridiculous 

message: In regards to this: In the 1950s she was a leading researcher in the field of psychosomatic medicine.[citation needed]. She was the first psychologist elected president of the American Psychosomatic Society so it states in her book Cults in Our Midst on page 385 and during the 1950's she was working with vets suffering from psychosomatic conditions post capture. So, would this satisfy the citation or do we need another since the obituaries are out?TalkAbout 08:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me, especially since that book was popular enough to be republished in 2003, and is highly cited by lots of other sources and seen as an authority on the subject by many.  Smeelgova 08:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That could work only if attributed to her, rather than stating it as a fact. As in "In her book so and so, Singer states that she was the first elected president of so and so." Of course, it would be better to find a third party source to avoid ambiguities. Certainly we cannot use her own words to assert that "she was a leading researcher in the field of psychosomatic medicine", as that is not acceptable use of a primary source (see WP:RS#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Psychosomatic Medicine

message: * Reordered chronologically
* Added sources and more details about the rejection memo
I will continue with my edits after other editors revise what I have done so far.
I have a question about the section Margaret_Singer#Use_of_the_report: How the report is cited? In which context? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DIMPAC report edits 

message: I inserted a "Comments from professionals" section to hold comments that don't relate to DIMPAC.  Tanaats 20:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the article is about Singer and about DIMPAC. So we shall not add other material that is not related to it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New "Comments from professionals" section 

message: The passage "When her findings were rejected by the APA for "[lacking] the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary" Singer sued the APA in 1992 for "defamation, frauds, aiding and abetting and conspiracy" and lost in 1994" needlessly duplicates information already provided above in the article, and introduces bias by pounding twice on the same negative fact.  Tanaats 21:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. I will remove that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that works for me.  The only questions is whether it should say "APA's BSERP committee" rather than "APA"?  Tanaats 21:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needless hitting Singer twice with the same info 

message: I am reading sources that describe Singer claiming there was a "Conspiracy" against her in the lawsuits filed by Singer and Ofshe, in which they7 accused the APA and other sociologists to be a part of such conspirancy. Does any of you have any info on that?. We have sources that confirm that she lost that case, but I read that there was another case as well. Will be good to find some info about that as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that Singer probably thought that, but I don't know if she ever said it out loud and I don't have a citation.  I suspect that there actually was an ASM (Anti-Singer Movement) which was an "amalgam" of those opposed to Singer.  However I don't have a citation for that either.  Tanaats 21:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually Singer and Ofshe wrote extensively about this "conspiracy" on the summons of the California case against APA. That was the basis for her lawsuit: that there was a conspiracy against her led by the APA and certain scholars. Only thing is that I cannot find these summons online. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can certainly believe that.  And yes, the dismissal of the law suit does mention a charge of "conspiracy".  But after a quick search on Google I couldn't find anything else. Tanaats 21:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Conspiracy" 

message: The current lead does not conform to the style guide. Maybe one of the involved editors would like to write a worthy lead to this article as per the style guide at WP:LEAD? 
:The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article.
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead to article as per style guide 

message: The DIMPAC report is cited in many works, but it cannot be assumed that these cites are positive, as it may imply from the text in the article. I suggest either removing these cites, or alternatively, provide information about the context in which the cite were used. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reporting citations of the DIMPAC report on other works 

message: Nobel price nominations are not made public. I don;t think that the comment by Daniel Goldstine, in that article is a reliable source to assert this as a fact. I have removed that mention unless a reliable source is found. 
From Nobel price: Unlike many other awards, the names of those nominated for a Nobel Prize are never publicly announced and they are never meant to learn that they were considered for the Prize. Nomination records are sealed for fifty years.
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, an individual writing on behalf of the Berkeley Alumni Association, with a Ph.D., seems highly accurate.  Why remove this when it is factually accurate?  Smeelgova 00:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Is an uncited WP article an RS?  Regardless, the Nobel Prize article also says "In practice, some nominees become known..." There is no evidence that Goldstine is a liar, he may well indeed have found out somehow.  His implication that he did indeed know doesn't ipso facto make him non-RS.  Tanaats 01:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ja, please next time some credible sources. Thx! Fossa?! 01:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to Daniel Goldstein, Ph.D., I have added citations from The Guardian and The Los Angeles Times.  Smeelgova 01:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: In addition to Daniel Goldstein, Ph.D., I have added citations from The Guardian and The Los Angeles Times.  Smeelgova 01:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: But, but...It's not 100% unverifiable.  The Nobel Prize article says that the info "in practice" can leak!  You may think that this is somehow "wrong", and that it "100%" could not be true, but isn't that OR? Correct me I'm wrong of course. Tanaats 01:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps if there were only one source.  But we now have three different, reputable secondary sources.  Smeelgova 01:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I can see that this will be contentious. I can assure you that an RfC will not go in your favor, Smeelgova. Prize nobel nominations are absolutely not verifiable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the suggestion.  Give me a moment, and I will do up the RFC section.  And please try to avoid statements like "I can assure you that an RfC will not go in your favor, Smeelgova."  Next time you might want to say "this might be something that would be appropriate for RFC."  But using language like that comes across as intimidatory from an Administrator - just so you know.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 01:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was nothing to do with being an admin. I am not editing as an admin (I can't). I am editing as a fellow editor, and as such I can make comments such as that one: An RfC will simply confirm that Nobel price nominations cannot be asserted as fact because they fail WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please educate me on wp:v.  Is it "unverifiable" because you have made a personal conclusion that it is "impossible"?  If so, in what way is that not OR?  If not, what exactly is the guideline that makes it unverifiable? Thanks much for any clarification.  Tanaats 01:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an unverifiable fact, for 50 years until the Nobel committee releases that info.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the very Nobel Prize article that you were the first to introduce as a cite, says that in practice the info does leak.  What is your response to that statement in the Nobel Prize article? Tanaats 01:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: User:Jossi you perceive that your statements do not have affects on others, but they do.  Please be more careful in the future about the way your statements and warnings/threats affect other editors.  Smeelgova 01:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that you need to take a serious look at the way you interpret my statements. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Here's a strange thing: LexisNexis churns out several semi-reputable sources (The Times, San Diego Union-Tribune etc.) for that assertion. Nevertheless, I am certain that the Nobel Prize Committee does not reveal its shortlist. Now, clearly, journalists are not infallible, but where did this rumor originate? Fossa?! 01:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have already placed an RFC for this issue.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 01:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the current state, this is a no-brainer: Wikipedia does not cite any sources for its statement and the Guardian/LAT/SDUT are respectable papers. I'm gonna check, if I can find a source for the Wikipedia statement. Fossa?! 02:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty easy .  IMO the question is whether this proves that leaks don't happen.  The Nobel Committee is an organization of human beings, and leaks do tend to happen in organizations of human beings when their is a juicy "secret". Tanaats 02:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nobel price nomination? 

message: I challenge the use of obituaries as sources to support a claim. These are in the same category as op-eds, and should not be used as sources for any claims. In very specific cases it can be used as sources of opinion, but not as sources to assert facts, in particular when these claims are unverifiable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps if there were only one source.  But we now have three different, reputable secondary sources.  Smeelgova 01:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I can see that this will be contentious. I can assure you that an RfC will not go in your favor, Smeelgova. Prize nobel nominations are absolutely not verifiable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the suggestion.  Give me a moment, and I will do up the RFC section.  And please try to avoid statements like "I can assure you that an RfC will not go in your favor, Smeelgova."  Next time you might want to say "this might be something that would be appropriate for RFC."  But using language like that comes across as intimidatory from an Administrator - just so you know.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 01:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was nothing to do with being an admin. I am not editing as an admin (I can't). I am editing as a fellow editor, and as such I can make comments such as that one: An RfC will simply confirm that Nobel price nominations cannot be asserted as fact because they fail WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please educate me on wp:v.  Is it "unverifiable" because you have made a personal conclusion that it is "impossible"?  If so, in what way is that not OR?  If not, what exactly is the guideline that makes it unverifiable? Thanks much for any clarification.  Tanaats 01:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an unverifiable fact, for 50 years until the Nobel committee releases that info.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the very Nobel Prize article that you were the first to introduce as a cite, says that in practice the info does leak.  What is your response to that statement in the Nobel Prize article? Tanaats 01:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: User:Jossi you perceive that your statements do not have affects on others, but they do.  Please be more careful in the future about the way your statements and warnings/threats affect other editors.  Smeelgova 01:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that you need to take a serious look at the way you interpret my statements. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Here's a strange thing: LexisNexis churns out several semi-reputable sources (The Times, San Diego Union-Tribune etc.) for that assertion. Nevertheless, I am certain that the Nobel Prize Committee does not reveal its shortlist. Now, clearly, journalists are not infallible, but where did this rumor originate? Fossa?! 01:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have already placed an RFC for this issue.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 01:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the current state, this is a no-brainer: Wikipedia does not cite any sources for its statement and the Guardian/LAT/SDUT are respectable papers. I'm gonna check, if I can find a source for the Wikipedia statement. Fossa?! 02:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty easy .  IMO the question is whether this proves that leaks don't happen.  The Nobel Committee is an organization of human beings, and leaks do tend to happen in organizations of human beings when their is a juicy "secret". Tanaats 02:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of obituaries as sources

message: * The Guardian and LA Times articles don't mention which prize she was purportedly nominated for - Medicine? Peace? It makes a difference. The majority of prize nominations are made by small expert panels, while any college humanities professor or any national legislator can nominate for the Peace Prize. Some time back I removed almost all of the claims of being nominated for the Peace Prize from biographies, leaving only those where the nominations themselves were widely reported. This is a trickier case. The most I think we can say is that "she was reported to have been nominated..." Since that fact is verifiable it might be worth including. -Will Beback · † · 02:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside comments

message: * The Guardian and Los Angeles Times seem like semi-reliable resources, although you might want to find a link to the Los Angeles Times article. I also couldn't find the book They Were Giants. Who is the author? I think you also have the ISBN wrong. The other sources don't seem that significant. If you need help with citing sources you can paste the links here and I'll cite them for you. ==Taxico 03:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A nobel prize nomination is not an award. As for the multiple sources, we only need one to assert that she was reported to have been nominated. We cannot say anything more substantial because noble prize nominations are only verifiable 50 years after the fact. Edited accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: This section is way too long and repeptitive. The viewpoints of Amitrani and Marzio need to be summarized. I will let these editors that added that material to do so. Otherwise I will attempt that tomorrow. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One moment please.  Let's talk a bit before you go editing.  That section is no longer than is the combined negative information that preceeds it, So I don't see why it's way too long.  It is just giving "equal time" to the counterpoints to the negative information above it.  As for "repetitive", what precisely do you find repetitive?  Tanaats 06:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not about "negative" or "positive", we are describing comments about the rejection of th DIMPAC report. There are many scholars that commented on the rejection of the DIMPAC report, and we are not describing their viepoints, are we? Having three long paragraphs based on one article by Amitrani and Marzio, and two paragraphs about what Zabloki thought of the rejection, is excessive. If wedo not summarize it this section will become a main article pretty soon. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have summarized the views of Amitrani and Marzio and the comments by Zablocki that they report. We can proceed now to find and describe additional comments about the rejection of the DIMPAC report. There are many of those. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your "summary" loses a lot of information.  And I ran across a WP guideline (I'll have to search for it again) that strongly suggests discussing the matter before removing cited material.  Tanaats 21:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on the DIMPAC report rejections section 

message: Regarding "In 2001, anti-cult advocates Alberto Amitrani and Raffaella Di Marzio..."...  Can we put "advocates of NRM theory" in front of all the NRM scholars that are mentioned in the article?  I really wouldn't mind at all doing that.  Tanaats 21:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-cult advocates 

message: For details see DIMPAC
In the early 1980s, some U.S. mental health professionals became well-known figures due to their involvement as expert witnesses in court cases against what they considered to be "cults". In their testimony they presented theories of brainwashing, mind control, or coercive persuasion to support the legal positions of former group members against their former groups.
The American Psychological Association (APA) in 1983 asked Margaret Singer, who was one of the leading proponents of coercive persuasion theories, to chair a taskforce to investigate whether brainwashing or "coercive persuasion" did indeed play a role in recruitment by such groups. The task force was titled APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control (DIMPAC). 
The final report of the Task Force was completed in November of 1986.  The APA Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) rejected the DIMPAC report stating that it lacked scientific rigor and and an evenhanded critical approach, also stating that it did not have sufficient information to take a position on the issues that DIMPAC was charged with investigating.
(And thanks, sincerely, for the complement.) Tanaats 19:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a good, concise summary.  Smeelgova 02:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks good and reads well:-).PEACETalkAbout 19:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Note that we are summarizing a very large section. Your summary misses some important info, such a the amicus curiae and the impact of the rejection on Singer's capacity as an expert witness. I can attempt to add these myself, but prefer that you do it as you have pretty good start already. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of DIMPAC controversy 

message: I have some problems with the first paragraph in the "APA Task Force" section:
* The whole paragraph is unsourced.
* "Controversial" has too much spin on it, and is unsourced interpretation anyway.
* They weren't testifying against what they percieved as "new religious movements", they were testifying against what they perceived as "cults".  The terms "NRM" and "cult" (as used by the ICSA for example) have quite different denotations and connotations.
* The assertion that they testified that "branwashing" etc. were generally accepted is unsourced.  I don't know, they may have done that, but it should be sourced if so.   
I propose that we delete the entire paragraph, unless some of it can be sourced.  The second paragraph can then end with something like "did indeed play a role in recruitment by "cults" or "new religious movements". Tanaats 00:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would oppose such deletion, of course. If you believe it needs work, please improve upon it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I prefer to keep it and improve the sources. (I'm almost always reluctant to delete in Wikipedia) --Tilman 08:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've made my edits. Tanaats 16:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "APA Task Force" section