User talk:ජපස

Apologizing

Hi, At the List of Scientists.... AFD I erroneously posted a critical reply to your comment but have already self reverted. At casual glance it looked like you had added a new section to the FRINGE guideline, but I now understand you were just posting an updated version instead of something brand new. I still haven't loaded that history into my brain, just wanted to apologize for jumping the gun. I still might be critical later, or not, but first I should educate myself more. 'til then NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Apology accepted and any and all enmity in the past between us is hereby completely forgotten. Incidentally, I did not !vote "delete" because many people I respect consistently !vote keep for this list (in some cases six time!). On that basis, I'd really like it if someone could convince me that it is okay for Wikipedia to have such a list. If you'd like to give it a crack, even here on my talkpage, go right ahead. jps (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a subject for the AFD page or article talk page. Not sure if I'll address your specific qualms or not at this time. Caio. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It's you!

Just now worked it out. I see you've been back a while now, but I didn't realise till now that you are "Previously". Good to see you around again and not only because we happen to share a similar view on List of scientists opposed to science. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome back! jps (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

For your involvement and insightful contributions

Thank you for reporting Engelbrecht on FTN. I gave up Wikipedia. Let me know if I can be of any use. -Fama Clamosa (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it is fairly clear that that particular user is here mostly to advocate for his belief. That's not what most people who are active on this website thinks is appropriate. That's why there have been so many arbitrations on the subject. If he causes problems again, simply post the diffs at WP:AE and let the administrators handle it. jps (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, thanks a lot. I've added back AAH to my watchlist and will probably return to AE sooner or later. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

If you do head over to WP:AE, just make sure to be brief, clear, and calm in any notifications. Just present the diffs and explain how they are problematic. Let the admins handle the rest. jps (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ජපස. You have new messages at Alfietucker's talk page.
Message added 20:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Alfietucker (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Metric expansion of space, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dynamics, Event and Expansion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Name change?

Would it be possible for you to shorten your name? When I revert you, there's no room to leave a reason! — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I might consider it. This is a good reason for a shorter name. Thanks. jps (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Re BLP and talk pages.

With regards to this comment: Discretionary sanctions have been laid at editors for less, i would point you at WMC's sanctions for calling such a group "septics". And it wasn't a threat, but rather a reminder of policy. --Kim D. Petersen 16:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll take my lumps if and when such rules get applied in such a fashion. I certainly understand the risks involved with this topic area. I'm glad that you aren't thinking of dragging me to WP:AE over this. Cheers! jps (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't see why i should, we can all fall into that trap :) Note that i've erased such wordings from my own texts before pressing commit several times. But WP:BLP is an important aspect here, and it doesn't just protect those that we'd like it to, but also those that we may dislike for valid (or invalid) reasons. My advice here is: Every time you write a disparaging description of someone, stop, and rethink a way of getting the same idea over without that description :) --Kim D. Petersen 20:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

But just because denialists don't like to be called denialists doesn't mean it's a disparaging description. If I was in a conversation with someone and they told me directly, "look, don't use this particular word, it offends me" then I'm happy to no longer use the word. But there is no objective measure by which "denier" or "denialist" is somehow disparaging. It simply means they "deny" something. Yes, there's a lot of protestations about Holocaust Denial, but I don't think of that when I use the term and unless and until I actually come across another human being telling me that they want me to stop using the term to describe them personally, I don't think we have a problem here except that we are invoking a false premise of what is or is not "disparaging".

What if I called them "Climate Change Rejectors"? I could do that. We can all play the euphemism treadmill game if we must.

jps (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't say that i disagree strongly. But ARBCC has set the precedents here. Do not use (what some) term as disparaging descriptions in this topic area. --Kim D. Petersen 23:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Now that we are at the topic - should i place a {{Uw-canvass}} notice here, for this[1] violation of WP:CANVASS#Campaigning? --Kim D. Petersen 00:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be rather nice if you would stop conflating disagreement with WP:IDONTHEARYOU. You've abundantly made your position clear over several AfD's and multiple discussion sections both now and in the past. There comes a point when you have to accept that people do not think the same as you, and that disagreements are indeed possible, even if they seem inexplicable to you. I rather suspect (in fact i'm certain) that we have much the same personal opinion about the people that our list navigates towards - but i do not agree with you on the aspect that we should clamp down on information regarding their existence. --Kim D. Petersen 00:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand we are at odds, and, as I said in my FTN posting, I simply do not understand where you are coming from. But the problem is that there are serious concerns which are simply ignored. I asked for secondary sources. The request is ignored. I asked for stricter criteria. The WP:SILENCE is only broken when it is implemented. I have seen some tiny movements by Merlinme and NewsEventsGuy toward understanding my position, but the entire discussion appears to me to be completely poisoned by an assumption that the list is fine. We need outside help, and a lot of it. That's why I asked at FTN. jps (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The silence comes from having explained our position to you several times, and your lack of compromise and consensus building. I've agreed with you that secondary sources proclaiming the people listed as sceptics is a potential improvement - but i do not share your views on this being the end-all of it. In fact i'll venture that you and i would disagree on which source to put the most reliance on, a secondary or a primary when it comes to a persons own opinion. Opinions are individual and they are best expressed by the person themselves - i've seen waaaaay to many scientists who agree with the scientific assessment being chalked up as sceptics (see for instance The Deniers which contain several who've denounced their inclusion (Solanki, Shaviv, Weiss) - not to mention those that kept their silence because they simply didn't care about Solomon's series). So in my view a complete look at the scientist, and their own words in context, is the only real way to ensure WP:BLP is upheld. I also agree that the scientist criteria should be tightened, for instance by ensuring that these really are active researchers, and not just someone who at some point got a PhD., but i do not agree with you on how much it should be tightened, nor do i unfortunately think that it could gain consensus (from experience: This is not the first time that this has been discussed).

On your FTN notice though, you did not just ask for help... you presented a non-neutral description and called everyone who disagreed with you "fans". It is a bland example of campaign canvassing. Please WP:AGF, and if you do not understand other peoples position, then ask, and try to understand! --Kim D. Petersen 01:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

C'mon, Kim. This is the first time you've actually engaged with me in years instead of just snarkily posting one-liners. I'm not sure what brought about this change of attitude, but I welcome it. I'm glad you agree with secondary sources, but no one has offered even one! I mean, your mention of The Deniers is indicative of my problem: it's not a reliable source. I think that one may not exist. Certainly, a grand total of zero have been mentioned so far. So where, as they say, is the beef? What seems to have happened to you is that you've become taken in with the assumption that books by Solomon are admissible for use as reliable sources (they're not). The only thing I can understand is that you like the list. You want it around because you like to see who is a refuser, or whatever. I just don't think that's a good enough rationale for keeping this thing in Wikipedia. Put it in RationalWiki. Put it on a separate website. But please remove it from this place where it is just functioning as a coatrack that cannot escape toward intelligent analysis because of Wikipedia's rules. jps (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You are quite welcome to start adding secondary sources to the individuals listed, i wouldn't stop you, i just don't agree that it is needed and thus can't see the worth of the effort. I've never claimed that The Deniers is reliable for this kind of information, in fact my entire point was that it isn't... so your point about me being "taken in" is remarkably off the point. And as for your rationalwiki nonsense: You seem to forget that i'm not alone in wanting this list - had i been - then one of the many AfD's would have succeeded... You paint it as if you have the TRUTH about the list, but reality is that large parts of the wikipedia community don't agree with you... --Kim D. Petersen 02:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't get it. Either we don't understand each other at all, or we're just missing something in what the other is thinking. I know you don't care if I add secondary sources. I cannot find any, is the problem. I've been asking for them for a while and I haven't received anything even remotely useful. If you have ideas, please let me know. I think you aren't "taken in" by Solomon, but why are you referencing his trash? I just don't understand it in a discussion about building content. I don't even understand why we have an article on that dreck.... but whatever.... I totally get that "large parts of the Wikipedia community don't agree", but I cannot understand where they're coming from. I've tried.... and failed (except I think I have determined that most of the people supporting the list are at least somewhat sympathetic to the people listed... not you and not a few others, but most of the commentators at the AfD). jps (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

If you cannot find secondary sources to attest that the members on the list really belong there, then i suggest that you are incompetent at google or have a different attitude towards what such a secondary source should specifically say. It took me all of 5 seconds to find secondary sources to support the first two additions on the list. --Kim D. Petersen 03:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

And no more than a minute more to find this, which from a cursory glance supports inclusion of several members on the list. --Kim D. Petersen 03:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

These 3 citations - cover at least a quarter of the names in the list:

• Antilla, Liisa (2005), "Climate of scepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of climate change" (PDF), Global Environmental Change (15): 338–352, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.08.003
• Boykoff, Maxwell T.; Boykoff, Jules M. (2007), "Climate change and journalistic norms: A case-study of US mass-media coverage" (PDF), Geoforum, 38 (6): 1190–1204, doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.01.008
• Dunlap, Riley E.; McCright, Aaron M. (2011), "10. Organized climate change denial" (PDF), in Dryzek, John S.; Norgaard, Richard B.; Schlosberg, David (eds.), The Oxford handbook of climate change and society, Oxford University Press, pp. 144–160, ISBN 978-0-19-956660-0

So i'm curious... you claim that "[you] cannot find any [secondary sources]".. but my question would be have you looked?! --Kim D. Petersen 22:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

These sources look really good for an article on climate change denial, but I'm having a hard time seeing how they justify the list per se. Still, this is the best I've gotten in a while, so I won't be looking this gift horse in the mouth. It'd be nice if you posted these sources on the actual article talkpage. jps (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

A) "justify the list" is a different subject than the one we were talking about. (that is notability, and that has already been established) B) They are already on the talkpage of the list. How about a response in the context we were talking within? --Kim D. Petersen 22:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what context? Are you asking whether or not I found these sources? No, I didn't. Then, they wouldn't have struck me as good sources anyway, though I understand why you think they are. jps (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

We were talking in the context of having an extra (secondary) reference to a person listed - not about justification of the list (which is a notability issue). So please explain why you wouldn't consider these good sources for such. It might help me better understand what it is that you are talking about. --Kim D. Petersen 02:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that these sources do a equal comparison listing, necessarily. An argument could be made -- it is plausible -- but it would be better if we could see a list or a declaration of amalgamation rather than a description of each individual. jps (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you point me to the place where consensus wasn't reached on including scientists who don't have anything about their position on climate change in their biographies?

When i found this link[2] in response to your question "Can you point me to the place where consensus wasn't reached on including scientists who don't have anything about their position on climate change in their biographies?"[3]... i found the irony to be almost too hard to bear. Guess who started that discussion? And failed to get consensus? You did. --Kim D. Petersen 01:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the consensus of that discussion is in agreement with my proposal. jps (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the consensus for, but i don't see the consensus against. But then again we have (another of your proposals in 2010)this which was a pretty clear rejection of the thing you just tried to bold into the list. --Kim D. Petersen 23:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

'twould be nice btw. if when you comment on the list talk pages, you didn't act as if you've never been active on this list before, and as if these questions haven't been turned before. --Kim D. Petersen 23:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Where'd all those "oppose" people go? I haven't seen them active on the talkpage. Frankly, Wikipedia's consensus model if flawed if the various denial blogs can rally the troops to comment on any and all proposals. jps (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as i can tell most of the "oppose" people are or were active wikipedians. And while i cannot rule out your conspiracy thinking of the "oppose" votes being gathered by somehow being canvassed on "various denial blogs" - i also cannot see any reason to believe that they were gathered that way. You fail to notice that the people opposing aren't generally denialist(s).. take for instance user:Dragons_flight (who was the first opposer), most certainly isn't one. --Kim D. Petersen 01:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Heh, color me unimpressed. I have no understanding of why as serious encyclopedia would assume it important to follow the "consensus" of users from years ago who are not actively engaging today. jps (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Consensus can change - no doubt about that. But you asked a specific question implying ignorance of such earlier incidents. Well color me amuzed when what fell on my eyes were your own attempts at reaching such a consensus.

Now if you notice: My position hasn't changed much over that time. I still believe that our scientist criteria should be narrower. And i'd still !vote 'support' for a suggestion such as:

At least one peer-reviewed paper in natural sciences on the broad topic (*) of climate change since the previous to last IPCC report. (*) Here: Oceanography, biology, glaciology, ... with climate change as a part of the paper - not just atmospheric sciences.

which was my suggestion for such at the time. But it still has to get consensus, and the many times its been tried in the past, hasn't reached such. --Kim D. Petersen 12:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"Still has to get consensus" is the place where we disagree. I think you have an excellent case and I don't see the argument for the alternative. In that case, it doesn't matter if a numerically large number of uninformed Wikipedians demand this or that. WP:LOCALCON cannot trump the general consensus outlined in Wikipedia policies outside of that shitshow. Just implement the change. jps (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

This is where we strongly disagree: You believe that the list is against policy, and i don't buy your arguments - and the community haven't bought them either. The whole idea that you (individually) can just push one of the most important aspects of Wikipedia aside (WP:CONSENSUS) because you personally belive that some policy is being breached - is simply to me unfathomable. --Kim D. Petersen 12:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not just me. There are a lot of people who have contacted me both privately and publicly saying that they either have avoided completely or left after realizing how toxic the arguments are. Getting mad at the standard bearer is par for the course, but it's really idiotic when the person agrees with you and still tries to defend the "community" on the page that is clearly not aligning to best practices. jps (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, i know it is not just you. But that doesn't change that you couldn't get the community to agree when the community was asked, and it was asked during the AfD. Personally i respect consensus, even when i disagree with it - apparently you do not, which i have to say is not really a good attitude to have. --Kim D. Petersen 13:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Nb. as a sceptic (generally speaking) you should be careful with statements such as "lots of people" and inferrences from this - self-selection and confirmation bias comes to mind as pertinent to that kind of statement. --Kim D. Petersen 13:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

N.b. you should be careful with statements about what you believe what the "community" "agrees". On any AfD, the judgment call is by an admin. One person. See WP:KETTLE. jps (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I am very careful about such statements. I've only referred to the AfD's where the judgement call matches what i've said. And i've answered your question as to previous discussions .... So i'm sorry the kettle might be grey or chartreuse - but it ain't black. --Kim D. Petersen 21:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

If you were as careful as you claim to be you wouldn't be engaging in pedantry and snide remarks based on personal and subjective evaluations of what "consensus" on this crazy website means. You are making statements like, "i don't buy your arguments - and the community haven't bought them either." as though there was some objective metric by which this can be determined. This is your personal opinion, but you are treating it as though it is plainly obvious and then getting snippy when I do the same with my own arguments. You can't have it both ways. You can either be magnanimous and humble in your criticisms or you can be an ass. jps (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah! For that particular metric there is a determining factor: The results of the AfD discussions. Therefore i can say with confidence that the consensus view hasn't been that the list breaches policy... no personal opinion involved - unless you are talking about the closing admins. --Kim D. Petersen 22:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's not go in circles. What you are basically saying is that the opinion of a closing admin is an objective measure since that is the only thing that determines the consensus. jps (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Paul Marmet

No references for this guy outside of pseudoscience books and the references in the article are from his own website. As you have dealt with some physics articles thought I would ask you. I think a delete or redirect would be suitable. Goblin Face (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I am familiar with the late Marmet's position as a scientist who liked to take "maverick positions" (to be charitable). He's much more notable for his mass spectrometer rather than his other suggestions. I think we should do some santizing along the lines of what we did for John Dobson (amateur astronomer) . jps (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I think he is obviously notable as a crank but the problem is that there seems to be not a single reliable book that mentions him. I had a look round he advocated a tired light mechanism. If no references can be found it might be worth redirecting his article to the tired light article or mentioning a line about him on there. Goblin Face (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, you may be right that he is not notable enough for a biography on Wikipedia. Most of the sources I found only reference his papers rather than discussing him. This may mean he is eligible for WP:PROF deletion. jps (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for being a noob I still have never looked up how to submit an afd. If you could submit this I would vote. I have spent hours looking sadly can't find a single reliable source that mentions him apart from his own stuff or conspiracy theory websites. Goblin Face (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Scientific community

Hi, the phrase "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" in WP:FRINGE/PS is surely not intended to indicate that a global poll was conducted among all the scientists of the world. However that is not far from the interpretation that some seem to hold, with the upshot being that the thing they like is not called pseudoscience.

I think if something has gained no interest from the scientific community, and independent assessments have called it pseudoscience, then it falls under "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community". There's no global poll, but there is the mass of "don't care" votes along with a few explanations of why the idea is not accepted.

Possibly WP:FRINGE could use some clarification, though I'm not sure what form it would take. I think the first step is to decide how to characterize "novelty theory". You believe "considered to be pseudoscience by the scientific community" is inaccurate because the idea is not widespread. Putting aside that a reliable source contains that exact phrase, I can still sympathize with wanting to avoid the "global poll" suggestiveness. It seems we need an equivalent phrase without that drawback. vzaak 01:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but blame arbcomm for that awful wording as they were the ones who chose it. You could ask for an amendment of Wikipedia:ARB/PS#Generally_considered_pseudoscience, if you'd like (and some of the other terrible content rulings listed there as well, while you're at it). Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment is the right place. Convince them to change the wording or vacate that and I think that phrasing would uncontroversially change. jps (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd be afraid to make such a request without suggesting a fix. The phrase "by the scientific community" does have some recognition as a non-literal concept, as in the McKenna source.[4] What is the alternative? Just brainstorming, "Considered pseudoscience by the standards of science". I don't know. vzaak 04:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

There isn't a good alternative wording because of the demarcation problem. The general solution is similar to the one proposed by Justice Potter Stewart, "I know it when I see it". jps (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes (there's a recent book dedicated to the demarcation problem,[5] edited by Massimo Pigliucci), but it doesn't have to be "good", just "less bad". The "global poll" idea often bogs down talk page discussions. vzaak 15:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The "global poll" nonsense is exactly why I'm not all that enthusiastic about replacing the wording but rather think it should simply be removed. The idea should be that pseudoscience simply conforms to the accepted definitions of pseudoscience. We can tell when that's the case when reliable sources have indicated it is pseudoscience. That's really they best we can do. jps (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Check that... if you changed it to "generally considered pseudoscience by reliable sources" that might do the trick. jps (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• I brought up the issue before with arbcom to no avail. See [6]. From what I understand, the basic response is that its not policy (since they can't make content decisions), but the principles they operated on during the particular case, so it wouldn't make sense to change their text on the arbcom pages. edit: Archive searching also really sucks. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

"Generally considered pseudoscience by reliable sources" is definitely an improvement. From what I understand from Wolfie's comment and link, since the principles explain the findings, going back to change the principles would not make sense in the context of a closed case. It seems a change to WP:FRINGE would be the thing to do, if anything is to be done. That would leave the issue of {{ArbComPseudoscience}}, which I suppose would be marked as old/deprecated.

Still nagging is what phrasing to use in the article text -- a version of "generally considered pseudoscience by reliable sources" devoid of WP lingo. vzaak 22:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Actual text in the main WP:FRINGE page can be boldly changed. I've made such an attempt just now. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Though it wasn't clear, by "article text" I was referring to an article covering a pseudoscience topic. "Generally considered pseudoscience" is too broad, "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" has the "global poll" problem, and "generally considered pseudoscience by reliable sources" has the WP lingo problem. vzaak 23:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

So... good discussion. I think the problem is with the proposal that one calls something "a pseudoscience". There are very few subjects which are strictly a pseudoscience. Phrenology and creation science are the only two that come readily to mind. Calling a subject "a pseudoscience" should be reserved for the case where the entirety of the investigation is couched in terms of a scientific veneer while being bunk. Parapsychology would be a pseudoscience if not for the work of people like Richard Wiseman who steadfastly insist that skeptical debunking and analysis of why people believe in the paranormal are part of the subject. The same goes for ufology. Other topics such as cold fusion can be defined completely independent of the pseudoscientific claims that get made in the context of the idea. So I think it is important that we remove many of the statements that certain topics are "pseudoscience". For example, "morphic resonance" is a description of an idea that Rupert Sheldrake has. It is only an idea, it isn't a proposed course of study or an investigatory line per se. As such it is not a pseudoscience, but the claims that Sheldrake and his supporters make about evidence for morphic resonance and the theoretical justifications for it are pseudoscientific. See the difference?

The issue is further exacerbated by the "global poll" issues when discussing the so-called "scientific community" or "scientific consensus". This kind of verbiage is as peculiarly Wikipedian as is any appeal to "reliable sources" or "notability". We should try to remove it where we find it. In many instances, it is possible to fairly identify the pseudoscientific claims that are part and parcel to the subject and then simply describe why they are pseudoscientific without problems with particular attribution or weird sweeping statements that don't make much sense anyway.

For example, I just went through and modified astral projection this morning. [7]. Before the article was making claims that astral projection is a "pseudoscience". It isn't! It's just a description of a belief that some people have. Some people use pseudoscientific claims to support their belief, and that should be described and prominently so since that's what the most reliable sources on the subject emphasize, but to call it a "pseudoscience" is a category error. Additionally, to say that the "scientific community considers it a pseudoscience" is an unnecessary and awkward anthropomorphization of a nebulous society... and is sorta incorrect to boot. Scientists and intelligent people who have evaluated the pseudoscientific claims associated with astral projection have pointed out why those claims are pseudoscientific. That's the kind of wording we should be supporting here. The rest of this kind of "Scientific consensus is that this thing is a pseudoscience" should be kicked to the curb, IMHO.

jps (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Remember

Remember this editor who was debated with you about the GERAC article at the fringe noticeboard. Now he wants me banned. They want me banned too. QuackGuru (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a shitshow. I'm sorry about that. I commented with my rather angry feelings about this. jps (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you see this? Involved editors are piling up on me. QuackGuru (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You're clearly swimming upstream. I would say the best thing to do right now is voluntarily topic ban yourself for some period of time to try to get some of these things shut down. They're out for blood, and it's yours they're after. jps (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@QuackGuru what has completely baffled me is why you have offered to help the two editors you were previously opposing get the GERAC article into whatever shape they want.[8][9] Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 22:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I may have shortened the GERAC article too much and I am trying to compromise. I think a compromise may work. I also made changes to chiropractic. Here was the previous version. No matter what I do someone will not like what I do. Question. Do you want me banned? QuackGuru (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Note. Alexbrn and I have a major disagreement at the chiropractic article. He wants to delete most of the spinal manipulation research but I want to keep the information. See Talk:Chiropractic#A 2013 systematic review and meta-analysis. QuackGuru (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I think QG may be operating on a higher level of cynicism with regards to this website than you might appreciate. QG can correct me if I'm wrong. I call such behavior "Wikipediavellian". It's kinda what you get when you mix WP:POINT, WP:AGF, and WP:CON together into one soup. I take QG at his word because he generally sticks to doing exactly what he says he's going to do. jps (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

That's actually about what I thought Alexbrn was getting at. "Wikipediavellian" sounds like trying to take WP:BATTLEGROUND to Art of War levels. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 16:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

And if you're right, then I feel totally comfortable with a topic ban. The possibility that you're right helped tilt me toward a topic ban. Mostly I decided to support one because I doubt QG can change very much, based on the history, although he has changed very slowly -- so I could be wrong. Whether "Wikipediavellian" or not, I don't doubt his sincere desire to help the project, nor do I doubt yours, although the Wikipedia-villain stuff is way too cynical and gamey. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 17:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

We are not here to bash chiropractors or acupuncturists. Wikipedia NPOV policy should matter. Bias articles are crappy articles. I try to keep articles neutral. That gets me into hot water on both sides. QuackGuru (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is a good example of trying to keep the article neutral and balanced:

A 2010 report found that spinal manipulation therapies are effective for low back pain, neck pain, migraine and cervicogenic headache and a number of extremity joint conditions.[134] Commenting on this study, Edzard Ernst stated that it was a notorious example of a pseudo-systematic review that omitted evidence, for instance, of negative primary studies.[135]

Rather than delete the 2010 systemic review I added a response by Ernst. See Talk:Chiropractic#Fringe journal or MEDRS compliant.3F.

I think the source is MEDRS compliant but there is a disagreement. QuackGuru (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, these are rather stylistic matters. One might think that it would be better to go along with a default argument of "remove until inclusion is shown to be necessary". That's a slight difference in philosophy. If Wikipedia were completely empty, that would not do anyone any harm. I'm most concerned with how Wikipedia can do harm rather than anything else. jps (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I never was told about the "remove until inclusion is shown to be necessary" to editing. I was editing to the NPOV approach. I think what Enrst said about the 2010 systematic review is informative but other editors can decide what to delete and what to include. QuackGuru (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

My problem is that you've been defending fringe journals, invoking WP:MEDASSESS for them, launching multiple threads with titles like "editors must not delete RS" (about crappy articles), asserting that chiropractic is "not fringe" and generally creating a high-velocity shitstorm in several places in support of your line, which makes sensible editing all but impossible. I haven't said I want you banned (though you complain elsewhere that I have): it does seem though that you are doing your best to persuade me that you should be ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I prefer to delete all fringe sources. Please edit any article anyway you wish. QuackGuru (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't necessarily delete them all; just don't use dubious content in them in a way which privileges a fringe POV. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

We could delete all fringe journals if we can find better articles that say the same thing. I can search for better articles and replace all the fringe journals. QuackGuru (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: I made this prediction. This is in a article. "a Cochrane review found it ineffective for low back pain." This was the previous text. "A Cochrane review found good evidence that spinal manipulation therapy was no more effective than inert interventions, sham SMT or as an adjunct therapy for acute low back pain.[24]"

The source does not say that SMT is ineffective. This is OR and there is a lot more text in the lede that is OR. I should not try to fix everything because I don't WP:OWN the article. QuackGuru (talk) 06:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this correct?

Have a look here, first comment -- I'm pretty sure you have Mallexikon isn't affiliated with acu/TCM in any way and that you have them confused with someone else. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 16:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I beg to differ, but the place to do it is not on wiki. jps (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Understood; WP:OUTING does take precedence over much else. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 22:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

See User:Middle 8#Things contentious: "Conflict of interest (COI): None declared. A couple of editors have suggested that my being an acupuncturist causes me to have a COI, because I might profit by making acupuncture look good, or something -- as that couldn't happen with other professions."

Being an acupuncturist is not a COI according to Middle8 but according to Wikipedia's WP:COI that is the exact definition of a COI. Now it is more than "A couple of editors". The undeclared COI editor is trying his hardest to get me banned. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259#Chiropractic. QuackGuru (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as COI goes, the "exact definition" of COI is not at all clear when it comes to profession, as opposed to one's specific employer. But have a look at WP:COIN#Acupuncture and weigh in. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 22:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

QG, I know that my deciding to support an indef ban pissed you off, and understandably so, but (a) your swing from conciliatory to combative makes me wonder how sincere the former is, and looks retaliatory, and (b) I didn't decide to support an indef topic ban lightly, and I'm still not sure if it's the way to go -- maybe a finite one is fine, or a self-imposed topic-area vacation, if you're serious about that. Please see my comment just above, and on ANI. It's obvious from your block log that you've gradually improved. What are your thoughts on taking a break? Why did you post this? Do you still feel that way? --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 22:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Middle 8 deleted the Adams 2011 reference and added duplication to the article and on the talk page he said: @QG - you have to be kidding. Everyone but you joined consensus at Talk:Acupuncture#Rate_of_serious_adverse_events and I simply didn't make the edit till now. Your conduct in that section was an unbelievable IDHT and this is just more. There was no discussion to delete the Adams 2011 reference at all. He claims it was "unbelievable IDHT".

• White, A. (2004). "A cumulative review of the range and incidence of significant adverse events associated with acupuncture". Acupuncture in medicine : journal of the British Medical Acupuncture Society. 22 (3): 122–133. PMID 15551936. See Acupuncture#cite note-White 2004-158.

While he deleted the Adams 2011 reference he also added the 2004 Acupuncture in medicine journal written by the trade. Middle 8 is claiming there was a conduct problem when he was initially ignoring what he did and ignoring my comments about the duplication. Middle 8, you were causing and ignoring the problems. See WP:IDHT. Of course he wants me banned because he wants to do more edits like this left unchecked. QuackGuru (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not appreciate how Middle 8 comports himself on this website at all but, so far, no outsiders seem to care that he thwarts WP:COI on a regular basis. I'm not sure what more to tell you. jps (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's find out: WP:COIN#Acupuncture --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 22:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I was surprised it survived the AFD. If it went for a second AFD is would likely be deleted. I merged the content to here. QuackGuru (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

QuackGuru, you are doing yourself no favor by beating these dead horses again; it's in fact more IDHT, and qualifies as evidence in the RfC. All of this was covered, and resolved, here. Just read it! My deletion of Adams was accidental, and I said so and thanked you for fixing it -- it is major bad faith (and major IDHT) to bring it up again. How could you possibly bring it up here without being careless or disingenuous? And yes, there was consensus to restore White 2004, here -- at least five editors agreed, and you were the only holdout, based on an unsound reason (it's all in the thread, and it will all be in the RfC soon). A reasonable person who read the latter thread -- should they be able to suffer through it -- would easily spot the IDHT. Like, every time someone points it out. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 22:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Middle 8, Conflict of interest is a policy because mistakes like the ones you made are easily seen in different light when you have a conflict of interest. This is precisely why I requested that you stick to the talkpage of articles. It avoids this kind of impropriety. Now you are up in arms because QG is complaining about edits you made which you really shouldn't have been making in the first place. Do you see the problem? It's not going to go away. Even if you succeed in forcing QG out other editors will follow and eventually you're going to find yourself on the wrong end of a Wikipedia show trial. I think you have valuable things to add to the conversation. We disagree strongly about the propriety of your professions, but, in the end your perspective is valuable because you have insider information on how acupuncture and TCM get applied on the ground. Nevertheless, your continued insistence on inserting yourself politically into these issues is nothing but untoward in my estimation. I think you are the one in need of disengagement. jps (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

"Continued insistence" re which issues exactly? Sanctioning QG? Please. You know if Guy/JzG is annoyed, it's real. Re the idea that my cut-and-paste error was somehow underhanded: you're either not reading the actual content on the talk page or pretending not to. Everything I said above is accurate. Just read the threads. And please see my and Guy Macon's comments at the RfC talk page: I am not bound to abide by your interpretation of COI; I am bound by the community's, which (at this time) doesn't support yours. That's why I filed at COI/N. I will acknowledge and abide by the result of that (or whatever the community consensus is, if that venue is inconclusive); will you, with respect to further commenting on whether I have a COI? --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 00:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not interested in signing blood pacts with you, Middle 8. You are operating in a completely different way on this website than myself and see no problem with adding and removing content from articles about controversial subjects as you see fit even while, in real life, you promote those self-same topics. This is not something I will let up on until you back down from changing article content. jps (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

"Blood pacts"? "Not let up on" your version of COI irrespective of community consensus? This is all battleground thinking. We certainly do have different approaches. Happy editing. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 06:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I was accused of skewing the facts but that is absolutely false. QuackGuru (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Wrong venues, QG -- please weigh in at the RfC. And I appreciate it if you stop hijacking threads I'm involved in. Please post in appropriate venues. Take care. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 06:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Waldo Vieira

Let me know what you think about this guy, I can't find a single reliable reference. I think it should be deleted. Goblin Face (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think AfD is appropriate. jps (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit restrictions

I do agree to the edit restrictions and other suggestions you and other editors have proposed. Maybe you could be my mentor. Thanks for your help in this matter. QuackGuru (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Political reasons may prevent me from being your "mentor" which, as a rule, is a fraught position at this website. Nevertheless, I think that edit restrictions (even self-imposed) will go a long way to diffusing some of the controversy surrounding your activity. Try to make your edits count before hitting "Save Page". This will go a long way. Soon, it will be clear who is appreciative of good work and who is just complaining about content. Those who are in the latter category will be systematically marginalized. Slow going improvements will likely win you allies in some of those who have opposed you until now. You do good work. You just need to sell it a bit better. jps (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Outing

You have made a number of statements about the real-world idendity of user Mallexikon. Please desist from this, it is WP:OUTING and is not permitted. It remains against policy whether or not the statements are true. Continuing to do this may result in a block. SpinningSpark 15:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Umm what in particular do you think is problematic? jps (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. You've rev-deleted it from the database so it's impossible to tell and, I presume, you couldn't tell me even if you remembered what it was! jps (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't play cute, you know perfectly well what I am talking about. I am willing to block you if you keep it up. SpinningSpark 00:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting that you responded in such a fashion. You aren't allowed to block on the basis of playing cute, incidentally. jps (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there some reason you are trolling SpinningSpark? If you think they did something inappropriate, just say so. Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi jps. I have no clue what this is about but I trust there are better ways of approaching this. Let's de-escalate. There are no benefits in the current course. Thanks. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I do think the admin did something highly inappropriate. But the last time I tried at this website to explain how a different admin did something inappropriate, all I got was sound and fury. I am not aware of any safe way to accuse an admin of misconduct on this website. If someone would like to show me where one can file a complaint without the risk of the rabble crying WP:BOOMERANG, I'd be happy to do the right thing, as it were. De-escalation would be wonderful as well, but when an entire series of edits have been rev-deleted, it makes it extremely difficult to explain or understand exactly what's going on. Friends here are wise to tell me not to moon the admin, I suppose, but understand that when one is accused of wrongdoing as above with no chance of appeal because the evidence is all inaccessible, one feels a bit like one's participating in a dystopian fantasy world. jps (talk) 04:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you jps for your informed commentary and nice words. And to clarify, I never suggested that this place does not have elements of a dystopian fantasy world. :) Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You take care too. With people here like Dr. K, it's impossible not to at least have some warm feelings about this place. jps (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

If you are really having difficulty grasping what it is you did, you can discuss it with me by e-mail. However, I think the real situation is that you do know, but don't agree it is a problem. SpinningSpark 07:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's assume it's the latter. How does one lodge a complaint? jps (talk) 11:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

As if you don't know already. SpinningSpark 13:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying I should post to the drama boards so that you can get the go ahead to block my account? jps (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe I have already said what I think you should do and it wasn't that. SpinningSpark 15:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

@jps: You could email me or Dr.K. and get our guaranteed-perfect opinions. However, you must know that any hint of probing personal information regarding an editor is strictly prohibited, so if the essence of a message would be "X posted that Y has a COI because in real life ..." we can skip the email because that is absolutely prohibited and, if repeated, will correctly lead to an indefinite block until there is a plausible undertaking to never use that path. I fully support the WP:OUTING policy, although I agree that it leads to very unfortunate problems when a COI arises (I'm speculating about the COI—I saw nothing of the discussion leading to this). Wikipedia has problems—that is known—but nibbling out OUTING will not benefit the community. Johnuniq (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

"nibbling out OUTING will not benefit the community". So you say, but I think that remains to be seen. If everyone used their names, I would wager that the number of issues on wikipedia would be substantially reduced (although I have no desire to unilaterally do so) and wikipedia would approach being like a real encyclopedia. That said, I would suggest no OUTING even if there is a COI for the reason of threatening admins, Second Quantization (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) But is it "outing" to say something broad like "Editor X is a cardiologist in real life" ? I thought outing was posting information specific enough to allow an editor to be identified IRL - the examples in the policy are "legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrn (talk • contribs) 04:36, 22 February 2014

Oh dear. Posting any personal information about an editor (not currently disclosed on en.wikipedia by that editor), whether correct or not, whether speculation or not, is prohibited by the WP:OUTING policy. And apart from that, saying something like "editor X might be a cardiologist" is creepy. Johnuniq (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

"But is it "outing" to say something broad like "Editor X is a cardiologist in real life" ? I thought outing was posting information specific enough to allow an editor to be identified IRL - the examples in the policy are "legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information"." This seems to depend ENTIRELY on which side of an argument you're on. For example an editor here some years ago deliberately 'outed' himself (probably and ego thing), only to then cry IRL harassment and threats and tried to re-hide his identity. My own hunch was, that his university did not like him misrepresenting himself on Wikipedia as a professor and other disreputable behavior and so told him to pull his head in (though this is purely speculation on my part). At a later point in time, I came along and clearly recognized the antagonistic behavior of the same editor and on stating that elsewhere on line the same person had had personal interaction with both myself and a person whose BLP I was trying to improve, he denied any COI using weasely wormy statements but never really refuting my accusation. Nevertheless, I was warned against any outing behavior (though I had not indulged in same) whilst the wankerpedian I refer to kept on about his normal disruptive style of editing. My point is it matters not how closely you follow the rules and guidelines, if a bad editor has lots of friends here, she'll keep hassling you until you just give up. Most conscientious and responsible editors have a life outside Wikipedia and don't have time for the childish stunts pulled here endlessly. Davesmith au (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You've changed the question subtly from an "is a" to a "might be a", so it's not really a fair comparison. I should note that I think Outing is unfair until such a time as everyone publicly discloses their identity, which I think would be preferable. I think requiring real names and setting the sources standard to academic sources would utterly transform wikipedia for the better. Second Quantization (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

acupuncture

Responding to this here, as it is off topic of the article's content. Do I think neuroscience and acupuncture are on the same footing? absolutely not! what i am doing is trying to get a sense of how you reason on a talk page. talking about sources is a great first step, to do that. and it is also the starting point for building content. what your linked-to remark, makes pretty clear, is that it is going to be hard going. that you would draw vast differences between two professional societies based on their underlying professions, is an eyebrow raiser. a professional society is a professional society, right? a professional society for X will seek to get people to become X, help train people doing X to do it better, try to get more prestige and money for X etc etc. True for cops, plumbers, neuroscientists, acupuncturists. and you find honest cops, and bad cops, etc etc. However!-- I can make sense out of your drawing such a vast difference, if I imagine equating all acupuncturists with say, criminals or carnies. Then their "professional society" is really just a mafia... but if that is where you are coming from.... like i said, eyebrow raiser.

that said, we are probably going to be aligned in a lot of conversations - i spend most of my wikitime working on health-related content, mostly moderating too-strong bullshitty statements; in the real world, and especially in the biomedical world, there is a lot that is unknown - a lot that is grey - and much bullshit is generated when people try to make things too black or white. (X is toxic and kills babies; or Y is a cure all). i follow the science. so to the extent that people want to make strong claims that "acupuncture is effective for X" and there isn't data to support that from the best and most recent MEDRS sources available, i will work to have things stated with appropriate toned down nuance; or if folks start talking about qi like it is as material as blood or atp... that will not fly with me. (that was a nice rhyming triplet there)

but to the extent that there is ax-grinding the other way... well we will see! i don't have a crystal ball and i don't know how things will turn out. and i always hope for the best, and look for hands, not axes. in any case, see you on Talk! Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

A professional society most certainly is not a professional society. The BFRO is not the AAAS. We were actually not talking about the societies themselves anyway. We were talking about whether the journals that are sponsored by respective societies are reliable. I have no doubt that a trade journal sponsored by the BFRO is going to be doing a good job promoting the careers and livelihoods of its members just as journals sponsored by the AAAS do a similarly good job promoting the careers and livelihoods of its members. However Science (magazine) is a lot more reliable than The Bigfoot Field Journal. That one's obvious, but the comparison is apt. The acupuncturists are not in the business of evaluating claims scientifically. They simply aren't. The reason for this is that they are basing their ideas on proposals that are either not falsifiable or have been falsified. There's nothing left for them to do but promote via propaganda. I'm not saying that the AAAS doesn't engage in propaganda, but they don't do it as a matter of intent in their flagship journals. The acupuncture journals cannot help but do that because they have nothing else to base their rhetoric upon. Sure, they will dress up their arguments in "evidence basis", but at the end of the day they do not permit the basic criticism that is necessary for reliable research and identification of measurable phenomena to enter their (pardon my Wikipedish) walled gardens. That's just how it is. There's really not much more to it than that. The nice thing is that Wikipedia has in place guidelines and policies that allow us to see these fronts for what they are and dismiss them properly. jps (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) ... but the bad thing is those policies and guidelines are less clear & prominent than they should be ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

agreed on that! we need to keep PAG front and center for sure. Jytdog (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

ok so my eyebrow has now raised all the way up. so jps, i hear you when you say that ~some~ acupuncture folks make fringe claims that are unscientific. however i hope you would agree that a hypothesis that "acupuncture is effective for treating migraine" is indeed falsifiable. and i hope you would agree that experimental design is a bitch in these fields. and further i hope you would agree that most clinical studies that have been done are too small and too poorly controlled to yield really useful data. what that leaves me with, at least, is that in many cases for acupuncture, the killer experiments have not been done that falsify a given hypothesis. and i hope you know that for many drug and device interventions, tested with great designs and big populations by very smart people and funded by smart investors, we end up with data that is hard to evaluate. i have read the transcripts of many an FDA panel reviewing NDAs and PMAs, and the amount of agonizing that goes on is amazing as they ask themselves, is it safe enough, and is it effective enough - is it it valid for me to even decide given this data? and even after the best trials and careful analysis are done, we sometimes don't discover serious toxicities until a drug is put on the market and used by millions (e.g avandia). The point of all that is that clinical trial science is difficult and messy. There is a "finish line" of "safe enough and effective enough for X" - I am not by any means to trying to fuzzify that away. Experts can indeed look at a set of clinical data and judge "yep, safe enough and effective enough for X", and when something has not crossed that line we definitely need to be clear about that. But that remains the best judgement we can make given the data at hand.

And what I am trying to say, is that you are painting with too broad a brush, too thumpingly - in a way that is unsupportable in the real world - when you write "they are basing their ideas on proposals that ...have been falsified. There's nothing left for them to do but promote...". (pause - as that was a mighty broad statement.) I want to say to you that, from my perspective, that particular belief is just that - a belief; it is unscientific. It is as unscientific as a belief that "acupuncture will one day prove its effectiveness for many things." (i am very carefully not speaking about the underlying theories in TCM but about testing its effectiveness for any indication) Please hear me -- Neither belief (for or against) should be influencing the discussion in Wikipedia and to the extent that it is, this is WP:ADVOCACY, right? In my view, your belief and your advocacy for it, is making the conversation on the article harder than it needs to be. You are making some reasonable arguments based on PAG, but already on Talk, as here, you have spent considerable time and space offering me series of statements, thumpingly, based on your belief, and not on the science or the sources. You are clearly a very smart guy - please hear me when I say that I am not talking about the soundness of your reasoning, but rather about your assumptions and goals. I am asking you to check your beliefs at the door and to proceed less thumpingly, and with more nuance and care, and to base your arguments on Talk more carefully on sources and PAG and less on your beliefs. Would you please try to do that? It would be great to reach consensus and settle the page, but the more the axes are in play on either side, the more impossible that becomes. I do value your work to keep FRINGE out of wikipedia, very much, btw. Thanks for listening and for talking.Jytdog (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

If I say Russell's teapot does not exist, is that just an expression of "belief" ? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

i am trying to have a difficult conversation here, alexbrn, and you are off topic. you are welcome to participate but please be productive. jps boldly stated his belief that "The acupuncturists are not in the business of evaluating claims scientifically. They simply aren't. The reason for this is that they are basing their ideas on proposals that are either not falsifiable or have been falsified." That belief (not the acupuncturists) is the teapot under discussion. Jytdog (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I meant to be on topic, and to the point! You wrote that jps' position was based "based on [his] belief, and not on the science or the sources." But for certain things it is more basic than that - Russell proposed there was a teapot orbiting the sun; acupuncturists have proposed that the human body has a system of energy channels mirroring the rivers of China, into which you can insert needles to cure disease. Both obvious bollocks, and we can stop there -- that anyway is the view of many scientists (we mention a couple but could mention more) and is (I think) jps' view. I don't think this is a "belief" but an insistence that basic science, reason and logic must be the foundation on which anything further is built. Wikipedia recognizes the phenomenon of "obvious pseudoscience". However, since some people argue that acupuncture is not "obvious pseudoscience" our article in fact takes a very soft view of it and entertains the investigative work that has been done. In any case, WP:FRINGE applies and its guidance that we use independent sources is important to keep the article neutral, I think. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

first, and again. the goal of my writing here was to ask jps to change his behavior on Talk, and you are definitely distracting from that. but as the disruption has happened, let's see it through. i very very specifically said above, which I will now make bold since you ignored it i am very carefully not speaking about the underlying theories in TCM but about testing its effectiveness for any indication The effectiveness of acupuncture for any given indication is a scientific question - a testable hypothesis. You and others may not care enough about the question to test it (and i would be very sympathetic to that choice) but the underlying theory is not what I am talking about. To the best of my understanding of the most current MEDRS sources, the scientific statement on the effectiveness of acupuncture would be something like "The data we have to date is generally poor, and to the extent it can be interpreted at all, acupuncture seems to have the same effect as placebo in most indications." What we are discussing here, is jps statement of his belief that: "The acupuncturists are not in the business of evaluating claims scientifically. They simply aren't. The reason for this is that they are basing their ideas on proposals that are either not falsifiable or have been falsified. There's nothing left for them to do but promote via propaganda." That is the statement of belief under discussion. With respect to claims for effectiveness of acupuncture, which again, is what i am talking about, those claims are definitely falsifiable, and there is no end to the experiments that can be done in the future to test them. It is totally valid to say "I believe that those experiments will yield uninterpretable data for the most part and to the extent they do yield good data, they will falsify the hypothesis". But that belief - any belief - especially when it drives fierce discussion - has no place on wikipedia. And it really has no place in an article discussing a specific set of acupuncture clinical trials - scientific experiments testing hypotheses. This is the ax I am asking him to put down. Can you not see the difference? Jytdog (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

now i will address the underlying theories of TCM and other prescientific theories of the body that persist to this day. Writing about these in a truly neutral way is difficult; writing about them on Wikipedia, where anybody can edit, is really really hard. I understand these articles get very battlegroundy as scientifically illiterate people want to make absurd claims about them and I have been involved some in keeping quackery out. I get it! I value quack-fighting on Wikipedia a lot and value the contributors who do it - it can be exasperating and it take tenacity to stick with it. Nonetheless, I sometimes find that allies in that work make things harder than necessary. Jytdog (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)