User talk:Bon courage

please cite from journals re K2

User was banned
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
not from woowoo — Preceding unsigned comment added by T12999 (talk • contribs) I cited and you have not, i also have changed what was not copyrighted in the first place. Please do not war or you will be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T12999 (talk • contribs)

The question becomes: have you read the reliable sources page

@Alexbrn: The information your marking as poorly sourced is biographical. News articles are acceptable for this type of information in a medical article. "the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical information in a medical article." So please self-revert as I do not want to start edit warring with you. If you want to clean up the information I would welcome that, but the fact that certain teams or players use yoga is not medical information and can, according to wiki policy, be used in this article. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 05:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I commented on the article Talk page. Whoever put this text in was very naughty. Alexbrn (talk) 06:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

To save face, I will blame your edit summary. But, yeah...you're right. It doesn't belong. Cheers. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 06:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn (talk) 07:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Functional Medicine

@Alexbrn: Why did you undo my neutral and source-based edit of Functional Medicine in its entirety without explanation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cawjac (talk • contribs)

Because it was blatant fringe POV-pushing, violating our need for neutrality. Please continue any discussion on the Functional medicine Talk page. Thanks, Alexbrn (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Alex, the comments were taken from a scientific journal and the journal was cited verbatim. It was both negative and positive. How is that pushing my point of view? The current description is inaccurate, functional medicine is not 'alternative medicine'. I don't feel that strongly about it to take the time to argue, however the current page is biased so I have reported it.Cawjac (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

This is really about content, so please continue on the FM Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Zephrs?

I don't know if I'm dealing with Alexbrn or Zephr but the overly brief and meaningless comment of "poorly sourced" hardly applies to peer reviewed medical literature that I referenced. Edit what I did instead of reverting (censoring?) it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaringbear (talk • contribs) 19:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, what's this about? Ah, this reversion was clearly by me, not Zefr (and not "Zephyr"), although as an editor who is familiar with policy I'm fairly sure Zefr would approve my edit. The issue here is that your source is not a WP:MEDRS; we need such sources for WP:BIOMEDICAL information. Alexbrn (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry. How is a pubmed article not a reliable source here? That seems like a preposterous statement. Especially when you defend a scientific american article as reliable to make an entire 'controversy' section for Dean Ornish.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS (and maybe WP:WHYMEDRS for background). Most of the content "in" PUBMED is primary research, which is unreliable for asserting biomedical information on Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry I mixed you up with another editor there for a moment. I've got my wiki goggles on. Although your opinion might be useful on the Dean Ornish talk page. I have some serious doubts about the controversy section in the article. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, which article? In general, controversy sections are A Bad Thing. Alexbrn (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly why I object to it. The article Dean Ornish has a controversy section based on one smear article in scientific american that is filled with flimsy strawman arguments. It gives the false impression that he is viewed as controversial, which he does not appear to be. And since when is any dietary advice not disputable regardless of who gives it? I wouldn't think one author disputing dietary advice is an adequate source for such a strong heading. But the editor I mistook for you (again, sorry) has been adamantly defending this little slice of negative POV. I would suggest the source is fringe, and the neutrality is thrown out the window. You'd also have a better eye for which studies belong in the article since I'm more of a yoga/hinduism editor than a medical editor. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I've edited the Ornish article, but in my understanding he's (become) a WP:FRINGE figure pushing some odd beliefs. It's not so much a "controversy" as him just being at odds with science on some topics. Per our WP:PSCI policy this should be called out on Wikipedia and per WP:PARITY the sourcing can be quite relaxed. I think https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ has some stuff on him which may be useful. I may get a chance to take a look at the article sometime ... Alexbrn (talk) 08:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas/New Year!

Ozzie10aaaa (talk) has given you a Christmas tree! Christmas trees promote WikiLove and are a great way to spread holiday cheer. Merry Christmas!

Spread the WikiLove by adding {{subst:User:The Utahraptor/Christmas tree}} to any editor's talk page with a friendly message.

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yay! I'm going to get our real one later today ... Alexbrn (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Respect

Until yesterday I had some respect for you and your scholarship above many of the so called skeptical or pseudo skeptical editors. You attempted to bait and discredit in the cmts that I made, you attempted to twist everything I said and in effect created a dishonest picture of the discussion all of which was a surprise given my initial premise. And sure I kick myself for allowing my time to be wasted, as I initially assumed good faith and tried to clarify my very honest attempts to create a fair bit of content.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC))

Wasted time? Well, you did come up with "Medical evidence is a phrase with no meaning". That's ... quite something. Alexbrn (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The phrase was given clear meaning only because it was linked. In and of itself the phrase doesn't really mean anything, is obtuse. On the other hand the linked article does make sense. It would have been better and more succinct to use the exact language of the source even if quoted rather than the extra steps required to form a phrase created for our article which then links to something else- a better encyclopedic writing style. Just my opinion.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC))

It is a phrase in wide use across the English-speaking world and is used by the best medical bodies in their medcomms material aimed at the general public[1][2] (i.e. the type of writing we should be trying to emulate). It is also of course widely used[3] and even particularly studied[4] in the professional medical literature. Bloggers blog about it too![5]

There are other phrases we could use: "medical research evidence" or even - yes - "scientific evidence" ... but to make a WP:WALL of complaint about this and to attack it as having "no meaning" and as a "critical" misrepresentation of a source is just ... bizarre. As you observe, the words were also even helpfully linked to evidence-based medicine so the scope for misunderstanding, even among the illiterate, should have been nil. Alexbrn (talk) 09:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

ALA and MDMA reversion

Can there be clarification on why the article at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10619665 was reverted? Research shows that ALA can prevent MDMA induced toxicity and is relevant to this article. All but one note under clinical research was also sourced from the same medical library I sourced and cite from. (Timbudtwo (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC))

Hi! That's a primary source is it not? We would need WP:MEDRS for such material ... Alexbrn (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

www.NutritionFacts.org

In the Swank diet article talk you said that www.nutritionfacts.org looks dodgy. I don't know. The site has a staff of twelve researchers who review about 6,000 papers annually. The articles and videos provide both reductionist and big picture information on the latest in nutrition science without having to read 6,000 articles a year oneself. The reviewers also read the sources of a paper being presented and also the papers that cite that paper to evaluate the legitimacy of the paper. Although it presents information from research papers, which do not qualify as a reliable source for Wikipedia medical articles, it also presents quotations from and references to literature reviews, systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources (such as reputable medical journals), recognized standard textbooks by experts in the relevant field, and medical guidelines and position statements from national or international expert bodies - all of which qualify as sources for Wikipedia medical articles. If you have the time, please watch some videos on the site and let me know what you think.David H. Barr (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I browsed around a bit and stopped as soon as I saw the stuff about Turmeric treating cancer. In this country making those sorts of scientifically fraudulent claims (e.g. that the effect of consuming this spice can be "in effect reversing cancer progression") is a criminal offence - and rightly so too. It's quackery. Alexbrn (talk) 06:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

declaring COI in Anthroposophic medicine

Hi Alex, user Chickpecking has twice ignored my reminder to have him WP:DECLARE his COI on talk page Talk:Anthroposophic medicine. I thought it was a requirement? AadaamS (talk) 07:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

It's debatable whether the community would agree than an anthroposophic practitioner has a COI for anthroposophic medicine (although in my view they do). In my experience it's not productive to pursue potential COIs, as ultimately there is no way to resolve a problem by this route - it's simpler to focus on the basics of NPOV, sourcing etc. Alexbrn (talk) 08:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your response. AadaamS (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Knee-jerk reverting

Please try not to revert every change with lame justifications that refer to one small part of the modification. Modify what needs changing, keep what is valuable. If you can't find anything valuable in others' changes, perhaps review WP's style of editing. HGilbert (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Copyright violations in particular need fast reversion, and de-tangling would have been more time-consuming. If there's anything worthy to emerge from this it can emerge in time ... there's no hurry. Alexbrn (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

(Add) In fact I see you've done this kind of thing quite a lot. You need to be A LOT more careful about this. In general if you're linking a PDF from a journal (or something which replicates copyrighted text) be very sure that permission has been granted. There are many sites on the web offering dodgy copies. Generally the safest thing to do is to supply a DOI in the reference - this will get turned into a URL in a way which auto-finds the "official" version of an article. Be wary of other URLs. Alexbrn (talk) 09:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I have frequently linked to what seem to be officially available copies of articles: on the author's website, or on other reputable websites, that I have reason to believe would not be making unauthorized copies available. I have never linked to dubious copies (e.g. through sites that purposely make copyrighted information available). As I said, there is no reason to doubt that this is an official copy. HGilbert (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Authors are among the worst offenders. Tell you what, why don't you email the permissions department at T&F and say, "you know that paper you want to charge £30 per view for? Well, I've found a copy of the same text on the web - is it okay if I make it freely available via Wikipedia rather than have our readers bother with your fee?". For added excitement you could try the same with the Elsevier paper you linked to. If we ever do get permission to redistribute such content, I believe the permission agreement needs to be lodged with the WMF.

I hope it goes without saying that in such matters one errs on the side of caution rather than "risking it". Alexbrn (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Apology and Request

Dear Alex, firstly, please accept my apology. I removed templates you placed on some of my articles, mistaking them for those placed by a BOT, after also misinterpreting what that BOT does and its instruction for ignoring it. This was not meant to be disrespectful or even directed towards you or any of your responses. If and when you have time, I wondered if you might help me interpret and respond appropriately to your assessment of two articles: 'Creative visualization' and 'Brainwave entrainment'. In the case of 'Creative visualization', after significant time spent on research - possibly way beyond that necessary for what was a several sentence article prior to my re-write, I faced a major problematic, in that the term is used in evidence-based disciplines adjuvant to medicine, such as cognitive approaches to psychology and psychotherapy, but also in fields based upon pseudoscience and the derivatives of New Thought, and New Age paradigms. The latter is particularly disturbing - by which I confess a bias - because there are some whose claims for it include the curing of cancer and the attainment of wealth. 'Creative visualization' is also used in design. I therefore split the subject into three: Creative visualization Creative visualization (New Age) Creative visualization (Design) In the light of the templates you placed on Creative Visualization, I have clearly not done a sufficiently good job, and I have no problem at all in accepting that, nor with working further with humility to improve it, based upon your assessment. If I do not do it, I believe, based on the length of time the previous article, or rather sentences, existed without editing, probably nobody will do it. And if not for the importance of the subject, which no doubt you will empathize as someone with a specific interest in sorting fact from fiction in relation to subjects such as cancer, I am sure you will agree. I have spent a long time going through the article today and I need your help in simply drilling down and identifying: 1. The sections you believe require more medical references. 2. The sections you believe rely too much on primary sources Then, if I am unable to find additional sources, I can pair the article down to include only those sections that do exhibit the aforementioned deficits. I have also looked carefully at the 'Brainwave entrainment' article and would very much appreciate the same input, though I do believe I might have a hunch, which perhaps you could refute or confirm. You have placed two templates. Regarding Fringe Theories, the only section I can identify that might be construed as 'Fringe' is the one entitled ' The rhythmic nature of human activity'. All the others are well established and seem sourced accordingly. If you disagree, could you please name the sections so I can either improve or remove them. Lastly, could you please identify the sections that require more 'medical references', so that I can also amend their deficits, removing them if no such sources exist for their claims. I can of course simply leave both articles, and if they were the subject of regular consistent editing by others I would. But having worked so hard on the two subjects I would like the self-satisfaction of knowing I have left them in an acceptable state of clarity and without unsupported claims, so that my responsibilities are fulfilled. I reiterate my apology by way of closure. Many thanks in advance. Prolumbo (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! I have over 600 articles on my watchlist and not the considerable time free it would require to fix Brainwave entrainment, but here are some general thoughts about what I'd do if I did have that time:

• Be particularly suspicious of WP:OVERCITED claims (like "There is significant evidence to show that such listening precipitates auditory driving by which ensembles of cortical neurons entrain their frequencies to that of the binaural beat, with associated changes in self-reported subjective experience of emotional and cognitive state.^{[57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72]}") – if something can't be plainly cited to one strong source and have WP:INTEGRITY it's usually a sign something's wrong. Remember we are meant to be a tertiary work summarizing accepted knowledge (generally found in secondary sources). We must not be a secondary work drawing conclusions from primary work. In the sentence just quoted, there should be a good secondary source to back up the claim.
• Remove any WP:BIOMEDICAL material not cited to WP:MEDRS
• Ensure any remaining material is sourced to good independent secondary sources, with primary sources just being used for filling-in detail.

You could always ask for further assistance/guidance at WP:FT/N. Good luck! Alexbrn (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Very helpful and supportive indeed. Many many thanks. Prolumbo (talk) 07:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

naturopathy edit you performed.

how was any of the truth i claimed "silly" that was your only response. are you as stupid as the admins who are against natural medicine? is that why you removed it without a valid reason good work there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.23.43.212 (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Silybum marianum

Hi Alex, thanks for correcting my error - I thought Pubmed was an accepted source for reporting medical research. Is it acceptable to link to the same trial published in Clinical Nutrition, which I understand is a peer-reviewed and highly respected Elsevier journal? Clarella (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! - no, we need secondary sources not research articles for this kind of content. Please see WP:MEDRS (and maybe WP:WHYMEDRS for background). Alexbrn (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.Clarella (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks for all you have done this year :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

To all my talk page stalkers ...

Wishing you a skeptical Xmas and an enlightened New Year! Alexbrn (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Probiotics

Hi Alexbrn,

I saw that you were one of the lead editors in the Probiotics section. Perhaps this article would be useful? Quite often these companies target consumers with deceptive ads.

Thank you.

--Bluezell (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Mis-click

Thanks. I didn't know I'd done that. Should I explain what must have happened somewhere? (Fat paws on an iPad) Roxy the dog™ woof 14:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's just put it down to ... Xmas ;-) Alexbrn (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit War

Let me be very clear Alex, you cannot just simply revert my post and supply a non-substantive reason and expect me not to revert. I've supplied very detailed reasons in order to seek consensus yet your behavior is very similar to that of KingofFaces and Jps where you provide non-explanatory reasons mixed with insults for reverting my submission. I will assume in good faith that although your behavior is very similar to KoF and Jps, you aren't addressing this issue with them as a unified block. 16:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergilden (talk • contribs)

I gave my reasons; you've gone personal. You've reverted very many times to "your" version. Alexbrn (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Animal therapies

Alex, you can't just delete a bunch of sourced material and replace it with a mere meta-analysis of 14 poor studies and reach the conclusions you are reaching. Let's collaborate here and improve these articles, not treat them as a fringe theory to be debunked. Montanabw^(talk) 18:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a case where extremely poor content needed to be rapidly excised. Replacing it with a strong RS led to an big overall improvement of the encyclopedia in my view. I strongly oppose including promotional content giving our readers bogus information about ineffective & expensive treatments (to "deal with" autism e.g.). The previous versions of these articles (which you are restoring to) is shocking, frankly. Alexbrn (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Some yes, but I have issues with you dismissing the entire concept wholesale as "bogus" and accusing me of edit-warring. This is a legitimate model, though some of the individual programs raise my eyebrows, too. Per BRD, we discuss. I don't have an issue with some of the material you removed (the promotional tone, the stuff on certification in the AAT article, for example) but where there is sourced content, we should leave it and discuss the sources. It is better to look for improving sources rather than trashing them; for example, many magazines or books actually do have underlying citations to scientific literature, they are worth finding. I am leaving town today for a day or so, but in the meantime, take a look at [6] and [7] Montanabw^(talk) 18:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

There is enough blame as to who is "edit warring" to go around, I'm sure. I am guilty, you are guilty, we all are guilty. Still, I find it rather objectionable, Montanabw, that you would continually replace content that is so clearly skewed towards sources which are not nearly as reliable as to the ones which Alexbrn is referring. Sometimes wholesale removal of poorly sourced material is the only recourse. It seems to me that this is exactly what is happening here. Your insistence that we cannot do this is very much reminiscent of your documented WP:OWN problems which are part of which sunk your last RfA, for example. jps (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, with this current episode in view, the very fact of a previous RfA attempt rather boggles the mind! Alexbrn (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you discuss the content and article and do not muddy discussion with references to an RfA. Such red herrings always suggest that real arguments are thin, while this not so subtle slap at an editor is pretty low.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC))

This is a user talk page, so we are not constrained to discuss article content. I hope you'd agree that the WP:PAGs are as important as article content, and that in general admins (or would-be admins) need to be familiar with them. Alexbrn (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Shall we muddy the waters instead with the suggestion that you are a paid shill for MUM? jps (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure you can muddy the waters anyway you want to. Its still muddying the waters, its all red herrings, and I do get fed up with attacks on people whoever they are and especially excellent editors like Montana. I know what it feels like. And no I'm not paid by anyone to edit WP.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC))

WP:CIV "Present coherent and concise arguments, and refrain from making personal attacks; encourage others to do the same." A discussion of content that veers off to an editor's failed RfA and uses that RfA to bolster a position in an argument is an incivility and undermines one of our behavioural policies. So yes, I clearly support our policies and guidelines when I call editors on behaviours that fall outside our civility guidelines. Further, a talk page does not provide immunity from compliance with our policies and guidelines. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC))

Olive, you've got it the wrong way round. The RfA does not bolster any argument about the current article issues; the current article issues (retrospectively) inform the circumstances of the RfA. I repeat, that an editor who seems to lack a basic understanding of our neutrality and sourcing policies underwent (and was somewhat well-supported) in an RfA boggles the mind. If you think my saying so violates a policy take it to a drama board. (I'd also add that your grasp of policy seems a bit shaky - or selective; to quote from WP:CIV: "an editor's talk page is more like their kitchen; it's more informal, and (within reason) it's up to them what happens in there".) Alexbrn (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Alex, please remember both CIVIL and AGF. For you to come into an article and immediately dismiss its contents as "bogus pseudoscience" is not terribly helpful. It is far more appropriate to make specific, cogent arguments rather than attacking individual. And yes, I will be trying again for an RfA next spring and you are welcome to !oppose me again. Now let's move on. The bottom line is that you derailed a sincere attempt to actually improve an article by inserting your own POV into it. Given that there are respected programs that have been around for decades, you need to look at the topic with a more neutral eye. Montanabw^(talk) 22:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:RS says equine-related therapy is pseudoscience; "bogus" is my word, drawing on that RS. There's an industry out there selling this expensive stuff (mainly to parents of children with difficulties it seems) and there is no good evidence supporting it. Wikipedia was giving the opposite message (buy this stuff to "deal with" your child's autism e.g.). You say I "immediately" dismissed this stuff, but this is wrong: the dismissal comes from looking at RS. I have not inserted my "own POV", but material from good secondary sources -- the first that have ever been used in this article. Your implication that this not neutral is completely, 180° wrong. Alexbrn (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I already agreed that some of the phrasing was problematic and the sources needed improvement. My concern is when you use a word like "bogus," you are clearly inserting your own POV. But see below. Montanabw^(talk) 00:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

No, bogus may be my word, but it's not "my" POV (or at least not original POV), it comes from reading the secondary literature on equine therapies which find it makes sweeping claims and is expensive, but doesn't work. That means it is bogus. As the same literature also points out, selling this stuff is ethically problematic. I hope all editors respect the views as expressed in RS, and work to make these articles express them: that will give us the NPOV that is badly needed. Alexbrn (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

For the multiple articles we are discussing, I found this, which I think may meet everyone's need for NPOV and analysis... they provide the research and the summary. We can't copypaste, obviously, and it doesn't cover everything, but it seems to be the most comprehensive review I've seen. I can live with its conclusions (beats "bogus pseudoscience" which one person called it) Montanabw^(talk) 00:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDRS: communications from insurance companies are not reliable sources for biomedical content. Since we (now) have high-quality academic secondary sources there's no need to reach for junky ones. 00:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You didn't even read it, the link has an article that cites at least eight studies and offers a brief summary of each of them. It's useful research already done for us and if you don't want to agree with their conclusions, the studies themselves have full citations so you can review them for yourself. Montanabw^(talk) 05:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

You didn't even read it ← what are you trying to achieve by writing that? As a matter of fact I did, and it's not a useful source. Why not use decent sources? We're beginning to get a reasonable number of them now. Alexbrn (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

You appear to not have read to the bottom or you would have seen the source material, which is the stuff worth looking at. Montanabw^(talk) 05:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it references some good secondary sources (which are usable), but it is not a source we can use itself because it fails WP:MEDRS. And you're edit-warring it in now to imply hippotherapy can treat a huge range of conditions. Naughty. Alexbrn (talk) 05:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not edit-warring, as I keep trying for a workable rephrasing that is truly POV. (Keep in mind that your reverts, restoring your own edits, were complete with the same typo...which seems a bit knee-jerk to me) and do lay off the threats, they are not needed; I am trying to work in good faith with you here (and on about four other pages, it's getting difficult to track all these conversations.) The hippotherapy article itself says speech/occupational therapy and mental health. The Aetna piece references physical therapies of various sorts. Frankly, I would be OK if we un-redirected Equine-assisted therapy and merged the hippotherapy article into that title, making it an overview. But you need to lay off of the "no good evidence" phrasing (which I see you are also using on a number of other non-animal articles I have nothing to do with), it's SYNTH and it's editorializing. Just let the studies speak for themselves. Montanabw^(talk) 05:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

You are repeatedly reverting to your preferred text, which is edit warring. In this case, it is to insert this insurance source which is not WP:MEDRS as has been pointed-out. What is more you are misrepresenting the source by taking investigational work and smudging it to be "treatment". And saying "treatment" in lay language implies some degree of efficacy, so it is not honest & neutral either. In almost every way, this is bad behaviour giving us bad content. (BTW, "no good evidence" is often a good lay-language paraphrase of findings in EBM. This has been discussed at WT:MED quite recently, and you can always get assistance there for this sort of wording query.) Alexbrn (talk) 05:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Here: I have been trying to take time out from arguing to actually look up some more material and found this: [8] A literature review of 47 articles and if this isn't comprehensive, then I invite you to dig on your own. I also finally obtained a full text of the Anestis study and what struck me is that several of the 14 studies they looked at were the EAGALA model, which I personally find to be problematic. Even so, even Anestis stated, "we believe that research concerning ERT and other experimental treatment modalities should continue. At the same time, the quality of that research needs to improve..." They clearly are taking a very conservative approach, but I would not read their conclusions to say that Equine therapies are "bogus pseudoscience" -- their conclusion was that the 14 studies they looked at basically sucked in terms of various design elements. Montanabw^(talk) 06:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Where does the phrase you quote ("bogus pseudoscience") appear? Nowhere. The two words are explained above. Thank you for looking for good sources; the Lentini paper probably isn't a good one: it's does not appear to be indexed by MEDLINE (or included even in PUBMED) and the Journal of Creativity in Mental Health has an impact factor of zero. We do not need to use questionable sources when very good ones (like Anestis) are available. The Anestis paper does a lot more than criticize study design, it recommends avoiding these therapies - which is quite unusual, as is electing to use a keyword of "pseudoscience" for the paper. Alexbrn (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

You admitted that you called equine and animal therapies "bogus" above ("bogus information") and you tagged some of them with "pseudoscience" links. If you do not consider equine therapies to be "bogus pseudoscience," then I shall clarify. Montanabw^(talk) 07:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Right so it's not a quotation from anywhere. To be pedantic, it's not bogus pseudoscience, it's genuine pseudoscience (at least that's how our RS categorizes it). It's bogus because it makes claims that aren't evidenced (and makes a lot of money, incidentally, which probably makes it worse than just bogus). Note I am not suggesting using the word "bogus" in the article, but it's fine for my user talk page ... Alexbrn (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, so I did combine two different statements without meaning to, and thus and I misstated this as a direct quote when it was actually a paraphrase. That was my error. Fair enough. So am I clear that you view all animal therapies as "bogus"? If so, I must point out that "bogus" is an imprecise and rather insulting word that merely expresses your opinion, and also shuts down both debate and collaboration. As for "pseudoscience," that is also merely your opinion. Do show me a RS that o dscribes all animal therapies as "pseudoscience" please ... we have some wikipedia editors who even classify psychology as "pseudoscience" -- are you one of them? Montanabw^(talk) 04:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

As for the rest, there IS evidence, certainly evidence that could be presented in a court of law, but its quality as scientific evidence is weak (not non-existent) and more study is needed -- even the critics agree on that. The critics also agree that it does no harm, unlike a great deal of true pseudoscience (such as laetrile, for example). As for "makes a lot of money," that only exposes your lack of understanding of the field. Gross income or per-session cost may look pricy, perhaps, but in net income, not at all; do you have any notion of how much it costs to keep a horse? (national average in the USA is $2000 a year for minimum care) Also, the standardization of protocols now generally require two professionals in a session; the mental health counselor (to focus on the client) and the equine specialist (for safety and management of the animal) I am only familiar with a few equine therapy programs firsthand, but none of them are flush, they are always begging for donations, in part because many horses suitable for these therapies are elderly ones, with concomitant health expenses related to extra care for digestion issues, arthritis and dental issues that are quite common in older equines. No, I am sorry, but your bias is really quite significant. Montanabw;;;^(talk) 04:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

So am I clear that you view all animal therapies as "bogus"? ← "all" is your word. I have concerns about bogus information and bogus claims for these therapies being promoted by Wikipedia (particularly about "dealing with autism" etc.), I I have concerns about you reverting to them. "Pseudoscience" is actually a keyword for Anestis's article, which gives us an RS basis to use the term. I think any "bias" here is evident in your not noticing things I write (or which appear in RS) which don't conform with a certain world-view. What we need to be doing here is reflecting what the best sources say: it's really very simple. Alexbrn (talk) 06:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

That's why I asked; but you did not answer. DO you view ALL animal therapies as "bogus?" IF your answer is not "yes," then it will benefit a collaborative atmosphere if you explain where you actually sit on the issue. I mean that sincerely. And, for my benefit, where is this word "pseudoscience" used in Anestis's article? Can you link to this? I am rather concerned that your "concerns about bogus information" lead to its own form of POV-pushing, as evidenced by your penchant to add the phrase "no good evidence" across multiple articles on multiple topics and then rather harshly shut down debate with anyone who argues with you (though admittedly in some cases I agree with you). It's one thing to take that approach where we are dealing with a brand new sockpuppet of Wiki-PR or some breathless groupie of Bigfoot or young earth creationim, where the sooner an endless nonsense debate is shut down the better per WP:DFTT. But here, we are both well-established editors who know the rules and simply have a difference of opinion. I'd like us both to shut down the snark and see if we can get to a middle ground. To that end, I actually kept most of your edits at Hippotherapy but restored some of what you removed. (I do tend to revert and re-add as an editing style) Montanabw^(talk) 20:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a view, it doesn't interest me. I just want to be informed on what the view "out there" is. As I said "pseudoscience" is one of the keywords of Anestis's article - it's there on the page. I'm sorry, but I don't agree that you know the "rules" very well - you argued for primary sources for health information for example, and are still pushing Lentini as a viable source. Reverting and re-adding as an "editing style" is also not really great behaviour (it has wasted my time), neither is edit-warring your fanciful thoughts about hippotherapy not being used for mental health treatment, into the lede of the article. Alexbrn (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Séralini affair

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Séralini affair. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Ironic. -Roxy the dog™ woof 09:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

THERE IS NO ESCAPE! Alexbrn (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please remember that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. "no good evidence" is not professional writing and is too conclusory a statement for these articles. I suggest that you come up with something less inflammatory Montanabw^(talk) 07:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I wasn't the one who went travelling and said other editors should stop editing until I returned! Alexbrn (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

2016

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.    – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Who are you to threaten me?

You place OPINION on pages, and then get pissy when they are changed? Not going to tolerate that.

Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)

Dear Alexbrn, These changes are not correct, according to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) "Another useful grouping of core medical journals is the 2003 Brandon/Hill list, which includes 141 publications selected for a small medical library[Hill DR, Stickell H, Crow SJ (2003). "Brandon/Hill selected list of print books for the small medical library" (PDF). Mt. Sinai School of Medicine. Archived from the original on June 15, 2011. Retrieved 2008-09-16.] (although this list is no longer maintained, the listed journals are of high quality)" and please come to the talk page before editing, best regards - Jdontfight (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how that is relevant to the edit in question. Please discuss content issues at the article Talk page, and note that demanding editors discuss with you before they interfere with your text is a kind of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR which is frowned on. Alexbrn (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I asked for Dispute resolution [9] best regards Jdontfight (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I declined it; there is unfinished business on the article Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Pilates health benefits?

Even a cursory glance at the scientific research on Pilates shows that the statement "There is no good medical evidence that Pilates confers any health benefits" is clearly untrue, not to mention the basic commonsense fact that all forms of exercise confer health benefits.

Even if it weren't flagrantly false, however, this preposterous statement would not belong in the introduction to the article. It's simply not the place for it. Your edits are ideologically driven, and they are objectively false. Revert again and I will get an admin involved.

A basic scan of the peer reviewed literature shows that Pilates provides health benefits. Here are some examples. You did not read (or understand) the reference you cited. You have a responsibility to remove your false statements from this page http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26473443 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26578458 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26435334 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26004043 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22397236 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.122.39 (talk • contribs)

Hello there! Please discuss matters of article content on that article's Talk page, but before doing so please also read WP:MEDRS. Peer-review alone is no guarantee of reliability for this kind of content. Alexbrn (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn, the study you linked is not even close to being scientifically rigorous. The peer-reviewed studies I showed are, and I could have shown you dozens more like them.

And your writing is seriously terrible-- I mean it, it's just off-base and embarrassingly amateurish. You are not qualified to interpret data for the public. Please stop editing wikipedia pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.122.39 (talk • contribs)

Hello again! If it's not clear from WP:MEDRS why we don't use primary source, you may find that WP:WHYMEDRS gives an easier-to-understand explanation. Alexbrn (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Welsbech gases US pat 5003186

Good day. I think the Patent is very significant to the topic of chemtrails. Its a patent describing the method and chemicals involved. How can it be that it is irreleveant ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Dark gungal (talk • contribs)

Hi there! Because it has no connection to the chemtrail conspiracy theory. You need to produce a reliable source making such a connection. Please make any further comment on this topic on the article's Talk page. Thaks, Alexbrn (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

KE Diet

Hello. I'm a new Wikipedian and ask for help in bringing attention a scientific article that supports a basis for using a ketogenic feeding tube diet in medically supervised weight loss. This is the link to the peer-reviewed medical article: http://medcraveonline.com/AOWMC/AOWMC-01-00005.php . Thank you.

Hi! It's primary research and therefore not considered a reliable source here for claims about efficacy. Please see WP:MEDRS and maybe WP:WHYMEDRS for background. Alexbrn (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Family Constellations

I think you missed a FRINGE edit marked as minor. Have undone it. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Super, thanks. Bit of a full-time job, this ... Alexbrn (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Alex, I will get back to yo in a few days to sort ot Family Constellation text. Best regards, Robert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.14.185.48 (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Better here

I found this to be a "problematic" comment. Your accusations of edit-warring and POV-pushing are getting quite tedious, given that you have a problem not seeing the log in your own eye. I am going to graciously suggest that you assume a little more good faith on my part; I have no idea what your background is with animals or animal therapies (do you own a pet?), but I can assure you that while even I find many animal theapies to be on the flakey side, there are also some very promising findings. The trick is looking objectively at the positive as well as the negative and teasing out the stands of each. If you are on a campaign to debunk all animal therapies as pseudoscience or somehow "bogus", that is as surely an extreme position as those who believe in miracle cures. I hope that is not your position. Montanabw^(talk) 20:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think personalising is helpful. I am on no campaign, and I have no pre-conceived view as you appear to. I simply want to represent the best sources accurately, no matter whether they come out "positive", "negative" or somewhere in-between. I don't see Equine-therapy as needing any different treatment than any of the other hundred of mainstream and altmed therapies on my watchlist. You don't appear to get what makes a good source, and you don't appear to be able to comprehend and summarise the sources we do have faithfully, but are very aggressive in inserting your preferred text - sorry, but WP:CIR. Alexbrn (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

That is where we disagree; you ARE personalizing ("don't appear to be able to comprehend" - wow, that's a wee bit condescending). You perhaps genuinely think you are being neutral, but in reality you are ignoring anything that disagrees with your POV and attacking the person. You are not a person with a doctorate in science, neither am I (our educational levels are roughly equivalent, based upon your userboxen and mine). We simply have a disagreement on the weight and interpretation of the evidence. Equine therapies are not well-studied and I think it's fine to make a case in the article for the strengths and weaknesses of the three existing meta-analyses. But making a lot of "you" statements and assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid is merely WP:BAITing and bullying. I am trying to separate your behavior from the article discussion, and your behavior is quite incivil and not assuming good faith. Montanabw^(talk) 19:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Human spaceflight

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Human spaceflight. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Letting you know

I want to make sure that you are aware of User:Elvey/sandbox/User talk:Alexbrn, for obvious reasons. Please let me know if you would like me to put it up for deletion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Effects of pornography

Alexbrn, if you have the time, the Effects of pornography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article could really use a medical editor like you, Anthonyhcole, Yobol or Jytdog helping out with it and watching it. It's a contentious topic with POV-pushing going on at the article (from both sides) from time to time, and it's prone poor sources. While it's not a well-researched topic, and, as I noted at the article talk page, can be subject to the "and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published" aspect of WP:MEDDATE, it can also do better when it comes to sourcing. I've tried to get WP:Med to help with the article...but to no avail. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)