User talk:Hughgr

Welcome

Just to welcome you. Hope you see that people aren't the unreasonable bigots that they can sometimes seem to be at first sight. Thanks for taking it gently on the chiropractic page - most pages on WP don't arouse such feelings, but then most won't be accessed so often either. Please don't be put off from adding to the article - just go for it, adding is always less of a problem than deleting, because deleting is taking away other people's work. Adding gives something fresh to think about and the intent will generally be to help improve.Gleng 21:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

The Mediation Cabal

You are a disputant in a case listed under Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases. We invite you to be a mediator in a different case. Please read How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
~~~~

--Fasten 16:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You deserve a break today

Hey, thanks for your help in maintaining some neutrality against all the anti-chiropractic emotion. You have brought up some very valid points. You deserve a break. Looking forward to your return.

Barrett figured out that if it is about subjects he hates, by creating another website he can appear to be the expert. I have already raised the issue that it is un-Wikipedian of Fyslee to sprinkle Barrett's links throughout WP. A bit of a conflict since he has a close personal relatioinship with him, not to mention being his (Barrett's) assistant webmaster. I wonder how many links of Barrett's Fyslee has added to WP. That would make an interesting study in itself, wouldn't it?

Enjoy your tea. Thanks Steth 18:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not a webmaster in any sense for Barrett. I don't even have any articles on any of his sites. My relationship with him is so close that he doesn't always answer my mails, and far from always agrees with me. So your idea of "close relationship" is quite unrealistic. You can email him just as easily as I can.

You keep making the charge that I "sprinkle Barrett's links throughout WP." I have added a few because they contained information that is hard to find, that was relevant to the article. (Since it is the information that's the point, I have not objected when the link was replaced by yourself with other links that pointed to the same information - even when those links contained lots of advertising for services and quack products, while you complain that Barrett's sites have a "donation" link. Mine have absolutely none!) You imply that I have done this an awful lot. I'd like to see the results of your investigation before you continue with this smear campaign. You are making charges without knowing if they are true. That's quite disingenuous. I think you'd be surprised at the results of your investigation. -- Fyslee 18:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I see that Hughgr and I are on your 'Watchlist', eh? Hmmm. As for Barrett, aren't you his Assistant Listmaster for his Healthfraud Discussion List? Don't you post many of his links on your sites? Isn't he in your 'ring'? I was merely expressing my misgivings about conflicts of interest and...look who pops up! Just trying to keep Fyslee honest.

I haven't done an 'official investigation' but perhaps it would be revealing. Alright then, save us the time...enlighten us--how many links have you added to WP that are owned by Stephen Barrett? Steth 22:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Being Assistant Listmaster consists of checking the list for excess traffic caused by off-topic discussions or trolls. It's rarely necessary for me to function in that roll, only doing so when he's out of town or too busy. As for the other things you mention, it's only natural that people with common interests would have some contact with each other. I think a few of his sites (not all of them) are in the Anti-Quackery Ring. It took me awhile to even get him to submit any at all. The ring functions like most other rings, which is simply to connect sites with common interests. Unlike many other ringmasters, I charge nothing for membership or for featuring a site. If you want to investigate how many links I've added here at Wikipedia, be my guest. You'd be surprised how few, and in fact far fewer than would be appropriate. -- Fyslee 04:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Warning

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Chiropractic. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. and please remember that to state that there is no scientific evidence to support Chirporactic is both correct and representative of the scientific consensus (per WP:NPOV). But well done for deciding to try compromise wording instead, I'm sure that with a bit of ingenuity a suitable lead can be written. Just zis Guy you know? 20:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractic and Mass Marketing

Hi Hughr, I found this and am not fully comfortable with the wording. I would appreciate any suggestions/changes you might recommend. Mass Marketing Don't forget to see the Talk page. Thanks Steth 10:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hugh, you asked why we couldn't, in writing the article on chiropractic, advocate that further research be done. Check WP:NOT and if you have further questions I'd be happy to help. Mccready 06:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi, doctor. I know that it must be frustrating for you to see the slow development of the Chiropractic article. Your patience is much appreciated. I do think we may have reached some consensus on the first two sentences below, but I was wondering if you might have some comments on whether the third one is accurately stated:

Actually, AED did invite you:) See below.--Dematt 23:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractic, or chiropractic care, is a complementary and alternative medicine health profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, and the effects of these disorders on the functions of the nervous system and general healthThere is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal adjustment and other joint and soft-tissue manipulation. (Chiropractors/Some chiropractors/Many chiropractors/Most chiropractors/The majority of chiropractors) believe that abnormal displacement of vertebrae, termed vertebral subluxations, can impair or alter nerve function to interfere with the body's ability to stave off disease or other pathology, and that adjustments to the spine and/or extremities can restore this ability.

Cheers! -AED 07:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I was just reading your comment on McCready's talk page. On Wikipedia we don't advocate anything. Such editorialising would be a violation of WP:NPOV and as such would be unacceptable. I hope this answers your question. Jefffire 17:47, 17 May

2006 (UTC)

I've been diverted for a while so my comment here might be outdated - if so sorry for wasting your time. I have come across a number of heavyweight recommendations that further research is needed, maybe the resolution is to quote one of these - then its not our view, we're just reporting on others views. I'll try to retrieve these, will take me a little time to get back into the flow here though.Gleng 12:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

That would work. Jefffire 13:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

As you can imagine, the shear bulk of information is awesome and I have just finished the next two paragraphs but have to get the references right before I bring it out. If I bring it out too soon, it gets chopped up before I have time to get the main idea out. Even then it may get demolished. I'm trying to keep it NPOV and just the facts without regard to bias on either side. It's coming out soon. Hang in there, then I'll need everybody's help to fine tune it and then protect it from the sharkfest (AED's well chosen words). I think everybody here has good intentions, though some misguided. Keep a level head and be sure to think for yourself. Your enthusiasm is enheartening and helps to keep me going. --Dematt 02:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Troll accusation - chiropractic talk

Dear Hugh, I have been unfailingly polite to you and helpful. Were you referring to me as a troll when I asked Levine for evidence of his claim? If so, your comment was not in the spirit of a good wikipedian and may reflect a certain frustration on your part. Please try to maintain good relations in your discussions with users who are committed to producing the world's best encyclopedia without POV. Mccready 04:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to butt in for a moment. I believe that the both of you are contributing admirably despite having opposing view points. It can be hard sometimes, but I'm glad that this article is recieving good attention. After working for so long on other pages in what can only be described as the badlands of Wikipedia it's refreshing to see people working together on this article despite occassional differences. Jefffire 11:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Chirohistory input

Hughgr, I want your input for the next part of the history concerning BJ Palmer. Come to this site --Dematt 13:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Concerning your last edit... That was sooo awesome:)--Dematt 06:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I try :)--Hughgr 18:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Chiro lead

Hey Hughgr, yeah, I know how you feel about the lead. But, I don't see any real problem with including asthma and migraine and anything else. I see people like these everyday and have similar results as you. Yeah, I treat them for back pain and they tell me their bladder symptoms that their MD diagnsoed years ago go away. These patients come back because of their bladders not their backs. Because the science is not there, you and I don't go yelling it across the hilltops, but when it does...

The thing I am waiting to see is if Mccready or Arthur revert. Then we'll try something else. Keep kicking!--Dematt 19:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

ChiroTalk

I noticed recently that Chirotalk has started its own self-promoting article on WP. I nominated it for deletion. I thought you might want to chime in with your thoughts here. TheDoctorIsIn 22:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

We 'Aims' ta please

Hughr, Just thought "whose aims are" sounded a little more educated and more professional. Steth 20:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried to get rid of the "aim" word a long time ago. Mccready put it in and kept reverting it back.--Dematt 20:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

So shall we try again? I appreciate the great job of editing that Hughgr has been doing, so maybe he wouldn't mind this minor change, which I feel adds professionalism, not to mention proper English. Maybe Mccready has calmed down about proper use of the English language, and if not, it is still, afterall, a minor change. So Hughgr, would you mind if I changed it back? Steth 23:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Good reference

Your DD quote was an awesome find! Finally something that didn't make him sound ignorant:) I also like you're changes on VS. Hope they hold up:) --Dematt 12:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hughgr, did that quote come from "The Chiropractic Adjuster" or "The Science, Art and Philosophy of Chiropractic" or is it in both the magazine and the book? I may have referenced it wrong on the chiro page. If not, you can use the same source on the VS page. --Dematt 01:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

VS

Excellent! This is great. You have really cleaned it up and covered all concepts. The pictures are great and they are public domain so you are fine because they were before 1923 in the US and the copyright has expired. You probably need to state your sources for the list of functional types of subluxations otherwise it looks like it is your opinion of what subluxations are and you are an editor - not a chiro:) (You are not supposed to know this stuff - you are just documenting it). Otherwise, skeptics will eat it up, so document your sources. Expect some changes from other editors, usually their POV helps you see things that you didn't think of before, so don't get upset, just keep building!!!! Don't you just love it:) --Dematt 00:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

genetics

Thanks for that link! You have no idea how much that article means to me. I have had a long fought "battle" with my father all my life as he contends that people are who they are based on their genetics and I have held steady on the environment theory. I always felt that genetics was just an excuse not to try to make a change in your life. He died two weeks ago and the night before, we were still discussing it. He had pretty much won the argument that night.. until this article. I hope he saw me reading it;)--Dematt 04:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Admirable restraint

Your revert here shows admirable restraint: "OMG, I don't know what else to say...." I doubt I would have been so gentle! While I agree with some of Mccready's skeptical views, I find his lack of team spirit quite disconcerting, so I can't even defend the guy when I think he's right! He swoops in and edits extremely boldly, and doesn't even show a cooperative spirit by working together with the rest of us and discussing it on the talk page. That is very problematic. Right or wrong edit, it's still wrong to do it that way. Wikipedia should have a policy that forbids editing articles without discussing the edits on the talk page. It would save alot of edit warring and 3rr violations. The collaborative efforts of editors with opposing personal viewpoints helps to make sure that all viewpoints get represented in a NPOV way, for the benefit of readers, and the editors themselves. I find it to be an educational experience doing this, and only wish I had more time between patients to do it. (I could do without the personal attacks and lack of assuming good faith, though.....) Keep up the good work. -- Fyslee 15:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Alleged

Hi Hughgr,

I have a comment about your edit here, using this edit summary:

• "saying "believe" is enough"

Here is the original before you removed the word "alleged," (which I will highlight here):

• Chiropractors believe that alleged spinal joint misalignments, which they call vertebral subluxations, result in bodily dysfunction.

Here is your newer version:

• Chiropractors believe that spinal joint misalignments, which they call vertebral subluxations, result in bodily dysfunction.

Actually it's not enough to just say "believe," because "believe" and "alleged" refer to two different subjects (in different parts of the sentence). The two subjects, which are both disputed, are:

1. That VS (misalignments) exist
2. That they result in bodily dysfunction

Only saying believe leaves the reader with the impression that these "misalignments" actually exist (to the degree, frequency, and severity) that is implied by chiropractors' use of the term "vertebral subluxation." We know that their existence in this manner is one of the key disagreements between chiropractic and the rest of the medical world. To ensure that this disagreement is noted, the word "alleged" (or some such qualifier) needs to be there. Without the qualifier, VS sneaks in "under the radar," as an undisputed fact. The only way to keep this lead NPOV (and possibly keep Mccready away from it) is to include the qualifier.

I suspect that Dematt recognized the crux of the matter when he reverted his edit here.

In the interest of congeniality, and to show my respect for you, I'd like to reach an agreement on this here, and then let you make a similar revert yourself (if I can convince you.....;-). -- Fyslee 08:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)