User talk:ජපස

Veisca pisces

Could you be more specific about the "original research" tag you just placed? that's a pretty vague and sweeping tag, sinc most of the article has in-line citations - is there something in particular that you think is supect? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

You know what? I think it's an error. It would be nice if there were more inline citations, I guess, but in trying to figure out what to do with Flower of Life (geometry) and Metatron's Cube, I came across the page and couldn't figure out the exact context. I think it's probably okay. I'll remove the tag. jps (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Metatron's Cube! The things you learn ... - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration proposed decision posted

Hi I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc. A proposed decision has been posted for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Comments about the proposed decision are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much you've been following this, but DrChrissy's topic ban will be official in a few days from the looks of it (currently unanimous, just waiting on the final posting). I'm preferring to stay away from the topic until the dust settles and certain editors are removed given some of the comments you've run into, but I'm glad to see other editors not involved in the case active at the GMO articles. That being said, just a friendly reminder not to spend too much energy there at this time as the topic bans should hopefully be right around the corner. A lot of the things the editors with upcoming topic bans are pushing will be moot point once the bans take effect. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the comment, but it is very, very important to establish precedence here, I have found. I note that two separate commentators have expressed sympathy for the idea that peer review is not required for reliable sourcing of empirical claims. This does not bode well long term unless we can establish that WP:SCHOLARSHIP really does mean what it says. jps (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Astral Projection

If you object to the word 'often' remove it. That sentence is awkward and needs to be rephrased. But something has to claim to be scientific to be deemed psuedoscientific, so I don't understand you edit summary.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Claiming something is scientific is quite different from that something being scientific. jps (talk) 08:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Signpost exit poll

Dear Wikipedian, you recently voted in the ArbCom election. Your username, along with around 155 other usernames of your fellow Wikipedians, was randomly selected from the 2000+ Wikipedians who voted this year, with the help of one of the election-commissioners. If you are willing, could you please participate (at your option either on-wiki via userspace or off-wiki via email) in an exit poll, and answer some questions about how you decided amongst the ArbCom candidates?

  If you decide to participate in this exit poll, the statistical results will be published in the Signpost, an online newspaper with over 1000 Wikipedians among the readership. There are about twelve questions, which have alphanumerical answers; it should take you a few minutes to complete the exit poll questionnaire, and will help improve Wikipedia by giving future candidates information about what you think is important. This is only an unofficial survey, and will have no impact on your actual vote during this election, nor in any future election.

  All questions are individually optional, and this entire exit poll itself is also entirely optional, though if you choose not to participate, I would appreciate a brief reply indicating why you decided not to take part (see Question Zero). Thanks for being a Wikipedian

The questionnaire

Dear Wikipedian, please fill out these questions -- at your option via usertalk or via email, see Detailed Instructions at the end of the twelve questions -- by putting the appropriate answer in the blanks provided. If you decide not to answer a question (all questions are optional), please put the reason down: "undecided" / "private information" / "prefer not to answer" / "question is not well-posed" / "other: please specify". Although the Signpost cannot guarantee that complex answers can be processed for publication, it will help us improve future exit polls, if you give us comments about why you could not answer specific questions.

quick and easy exit poll , estimated time required: 4 minutes

Q#0. Will you be responding to the questions in this exit poll? Why or why not? Your Answer: Sure. Seems fine. Your Comments: Q#1. Arbs must have at least 0k / 2k / 4k / 8k / 16k / 32k+ edits to Wikipedia. Your Numeric Answer: 0k. Your Comments: Edits are not what makes someone a good arbitrator. Q#2. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years editing Wikipedia. Your Numeric Answer: 0 Your Comments: Length of time editing is not something that makes a good arbitrator. Q#3. Arbs... A: should not be an admin B: should preferably not be an admin C: can be but need not be an admin D: should preferably be an admin E: must be or have been an admin F: must currently be an admin Your Single-Letter Answer: C Your Comments: Also irrelevant. Q#4. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years of experience as an admin. Your Numeric Answer: 0 Your Comments: They don't need to be admins. Q#5. Completely optional, as all these questions are completely optional: which candidates did you support this year, and why? Your List-Of-Usernames You Supported: All the women. Your Comments: There are too many men on arbcomm. The Quick&Easy End. Thank you for your answers. Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion. Your Wikipedia Username: jps (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC) General Comments:

the extended exit poll, estimated time required: depends

Q#6. Completely optional, as all these questions are completely optional: which candidates did you oppose this year, and why? Your List-Of-Usernames You Opposed: All the men Your Comments: Your vote counts for more if you oppose everyone you don't vote for. Q#7. Are there any Wikipedians you would like to see run for ArbCom, in the December 2016 election, twelve months from now? Who? Your List-Of-Usernames As Potential Future Candidates: It would be nice to see a slate of candidates who are not currently Wikipedians. Your Comments: Q#8. Why did you vote in the 2015 ArbCom elections? In particular, how did you learn about the election, and what motivated you to participate this year? Your Answer: I voted to make my 1/2500 of a voice heard. Your Comments: Q#9. For potential arbs, good indicators of the right kind of contributions outside noticeboard activity, would be: A: discussions on the talkpages of articles which ARE subject to ArbCom sanctions B: discussions on the talkpages of articles NOT subject to ArbCom restrictions C: sending talkpage notifications e.g. with Twinkle, sticking to formal language D: sending talkpage notifications manually, and explaining with informal English E: working on policies/guidelines F: working on essays/helpdocs G: working on GA/FA/DYK/similar content H: working on copyedits/infoboxes/pictures/similar content I: working on categorization e.g. with HotCat J: working on autofixes e.g. with AWB or REFILL K: working with other Wikipedians via wikiprojects e.g. with MILHIST L: working with other Wikipedians via IRC e.g. with #wikipedia-en-help connect or informally M: working with other Wikipedians via email e.g. with UTRS or informally N: working with other Wikipedians in person e.g. at edit-a-thons / Wikipedian-in-residence / Wikimania / etc O: other types of contribution, please specify in your comments Please specify a comma-separated list of the types of contributions you see as positive indicators for arb-candidates to have. Your List-Of-Letters Answer: O: Showing evidence of being able to mediate disputes and handle the sensitive issues associated with running a website based in part on social interactions. This need not have anything to do with Wikipedia. Additionally, it would be nice to have people who were academically inclined. Your Comments: Q#10. Arbs who make many well-informed comments at these noticeboards (please specify which!) have the right kind of background, or experience, for ArbCom. Options: A: AE, B: arbCases, C: LTA, D: OTRS, E: AN, continued: F: OS/REVDEL, G: CU/SPI, H: AN/I, I: pageprot, J: NAC, continued: K: RfC, L: RM, M: DRN, N: EA, O: 3o, continued: P: NPOVN, Q: BLPN, R: RSN, S: NORN, T: FTN, continued: U: teahouse, V: helpdesk, W: AfC, X: NPP, Y: AfD, continued: 1: UAA, 2: COIN, 3: antiSpam, 4: AIV, 5: 3RR, continued: 6: CCI, 7: NFCC, 8: abusefilter, 9: BAG, 0: VPT, continued: Z: Other_noticeboard_not_listed_here_please_wikilink_your_answer Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as important background-experience for arb-candidates to have. Your List-Of-Letters Answer: None of the above Your Comments: Arbitrators need to be involved in discussions to be good arbitrators. Q#11. Arbs who make many comments at these noticeboards (please specify!) have the wrong kind of temperament, or personality, for ArbCom. Options: (same as previous question -- please see above) Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as worrisome personality-indicators for arb-candidates to have. Your List-Of-Letters Answer: None of the above Your Comments: Neither does it disqualify them. Q#12. Anything else we ought to know? Your Custom-Designed Question(s): Your Custom-Designed Answer(s): The Extended-Answers End. Thank you for your answers. Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion. Your Wikipedia Username: General Comments:

Detailed Instructions: you are welcome to answer these questions via usertalk (easiest), or via email (for a modicum of privacy).

how to submit your answers , estimated time required: 2 minutes

If you wish to answer via usertalk, go ahead and fill in the blanks by editing this subsection. Once you have completed the usertalk-based exit poll answers, , leave a short usertalk note, and click save. The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published. If you wish to answer via email, create a new email to the Signpost column-editor by clicking Special:EmailUser/GamerPro64, and then paste the *plaintext* of the questions therein. Once you have completed the email-based exit poll answers, , leave a short usertalk note specifying the *time* you sent the email, and click save. The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published (not stuck in the spam-folder). Processing of responses will be performed in batches of ten, prior to publication in the Signpost. GamerPro64 will be processing the email-based answers, and will strive to maintain the privacy of your answers (as well as your email address and the associated IP address typically found in the email-headers), though of course as a volunteer effort, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will have a system free from computer virii, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will resist hypothetical bribes offered by the KGB/NSA/MI6 to reveal your secrets, and we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will make no mistakes. If you choose to answer on-wiki, your answers will be visible to other Wikipedians. If you choose to answer via email, your answers will be sent unencrypted over the internet, and we will do our best to protect your privacy, but unencrypted email is inherently an improper mechanism for doing so. Sorry!  :-)

We do promise to try hard, not to make any mistakes, in the processing and presentation of your answers. If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact column-editor GamerPro64, copy-editor 75.108.94.227, or copy-editor Ryk72. Thanks for reading, and thanks for helping Wikipedia. GamerPro64 14:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Ping

FYI: It looks like there was a failed attempt to ping you here. - Location (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms pages 1RR

Though your talk page shows that you were on the notification list for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case, you may not be aware that Genetically modified food controversies is under 1RR per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#1RR_imposed. Vergilden ‎has already been notified of the restrictions by KingofAces. It looks like you passed 1RR on the 'controversies' page today. Dialectric (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Note that you are already at 3RR on precautionary principle as well, which as the content is related to GMOs is also covered by the 1RR restriction. SmartSE (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

GMO discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

I'm just posting this because it appears you were not alerted to the 1RR restriction on GMO related topics. I'm going to open an enforcement case against Virgilden shortly. You should be ok since you did not violate 3RR (not formally being notified about 1RR). Best to hold off on reverts until it's over. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I was not alerted! Thank you! jps (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Also since you have been involved and may not have gotten the ping. [1] Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for putting up templates on the talk pages as well. Just as an FYI though looking at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Awareness_and_alerts, I'm not sure they actually count as a formal alert though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

No, they don't. But they should still be there just so that editors are aware, IMHO. jps (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

thank you for your notification, I was aware, hence only making 1 reversion on that particular page; 2 reversions would have warranted a warning. Semitransgenic _talk. 17:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I actually never received a final notice of the GMO case closing even though I was on the notification list. Too much to keep track of. jps (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

no worries. better safe than sorry. Semitransgenic _talk. 17:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The AE complaint about you and Vergilden has been closed with a warning under WP:ARBGMO for 1RR violation at Precautionary principle. See details in the AE request, where you previously commented. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The Never-Ending Days of Being Dead

By Marcus Chown. Highly entertaining though uncertain of its orthodoxy by Josh standards. I liked the idea that very very small differences at quantum level at the beginning could lead to very very large macro effects later on. Aristotle would have liked this. Peter Damian (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation. I'm skeptical of the claims about non-linear quantum effects being classically important, mostly because of the fact that renormalization seems to work so well. However, this is an idea that in principle needs to be looked at carefully before being rejected. It cannot be dismissed out-of-hand just yet. jps (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Reversions

You may notice that I did a "revert/restore" on the animal therapy articles that kept the critical material and also agreed with the removal of some questionable content. That is hardly WP:OWN. I agree these articles are inadequately sourced and need work; but I find it not helpful to have "pseudoscience" labels applied based primarily on a single meta-analysis of 14 poorly-designed studies that reaches a conclusion that is just as exaggerated as some of the aficionados' claims. Montanabw^(talk) 18:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You're acting very heavy-handedly... as if you're editor-in-chief of those articles. You also have not acknowledged that WP:GEVAL is an issue with your position. jps (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

GEVAL redirects to NPOV; I am OK with having a balanced viewpoint in these articles; I take issue with someone else who is simply declaring the material "bogus" based on cherry-picking studies. I would favor some solid collaboration to improve these articles, which cover a legitimate form of therapy that has some backing. I'll focus on the equine articles to spare myself the headaches of coming up to speed on the cat and dog stuff, which is not my particular area of interest; those who work in those areas can defend their own stuff. Montanabw^(talk) 18:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you don't see exactly where the pointer for GEVAL goes to. It is to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance, a section which explicitly asks us to consider not doing the "on the one hand/on the other hand" type of sourcing. We are required to make an editorial judgment about which sources are most reliable and which are not. The "legitimacy" of this therapy appears to be almost entirely the invention of the people who are selling the experience. I don't see any sources which dispute this and you haven't been able to point to any, as far as I can tell. jps (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Equine therapy

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) 00:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Insurance companies are generally in the business of being discriminating when it comes to treatment coverage (on the back end) and being accepting of various medical modalities to attract customers (on the front end). These two motivations will drive the means by which they describe any treatment option. For example, while insurance companies will reject pseudoscientific treatments, they do not necessarily do so out of a cool evaluation of the facts for the betterment of their clients but rather for a plausible justification for denying claims in favor of their own bottom line. Likewise, insurance companies are notorious for denying claims for experimental treatments even when those treatments later on are shown to be effective and covered by the same insurance companies. Other insurance companies cover alternative medicine out of actuarial expediency -- if a hypochondriac seeks out alternative medicine for the placebo effect, that could end up being less expensive than batteries of unnecessary tests. A cynical insurance company could see this as a less controversial means to cut expenses.

In short, I think that the published literature is a better place to look for sources to avoid these problems.

Cheers,

jps (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You may not have read the Aetna article, but the reason I posted it was because it has citations to about eight peer-reviewed studies and a brief summary of each; handy for our own research. And trust me, I know about the sins of insurance companies... but I thought that particular article was useful for finding several apparently decent studies that would save us a bit of work. Worth the read, I think. Montanabw^(talk) 03:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

There were two studies it referenced which were pretty good. I included them in one of the articles. Otherwise, most of the sources cited were not so good. jps (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Paydirt

I have been trying to find time to actually look up some more material and found this: [2] A literature review of 47 articles. 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. The Lentini piece cites a crapload of studies. They looked at Anestis but their conclusions differed a bit Lentini concluded the analysis allowed a "preliminary empirical basis supporting the use of EFP with children and youths," but also cautioned,"First, the field would greatly benefit from an inclusive body to come to a consensus on terminology. Second, there is a need for more randomized, controlled studies with large samples using non-subjective outcome measures." In short, there is agreement that existing studies have weaknesses. There also seems to be agreement that equine therapy for mental health conditions is promising and warrants further study. My read of Anestis is, basically, that there isn't enough yet to call it an "evidence-based" therapy (and I have no real issue to that extent) but I think we've overcome the "bogus pseudoscience" tag. Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 06:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be better not discuss the same things over multiple user talk pages. Really, article content should be discussed on article talk pages. Alexbrn (talk) 07:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, we also have this spread over at least four article pages and the fringe theories noticeboard. Got a nominee for where to consolidate it all? Montanabw^(talk) 07:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

General discussion at the noticeboard; source discussion on the talk page of the article to which is best applies, I think! Alexbrn (talk) 07:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that we have three equine articles and the AAT one, all of which are being edited the same way... same arguments, same "no good evidence" phasing (which is really poor writing.) Montanabw^(talk) 07:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually it's not. I invited you to check out previous discussions of this phrasing. Did you? Or shall I dig it out? A simple search will verify that the wording is used in reputable health encyclopedias aimed at both professional and lay readers. Alexbrn (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

May be a term of art, but it's still poor phrasing. Montanabw^(talk) 04:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I read the piece as was not impressed. Its publication in an obscure open access journal makes it more than a bit suspect, IMHO. Alexbrn's paper is much better (and the paper linked above leans pretty heavily on it while trying desperately to come to an opposite conclusion which is just not possible given the extant data). jps (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

If you look at the 2013 Selby/Smith-Osborne study though, and realize that it was one that Alexbrn's paper (Anstis 2014) was in turn "trying desperately to come to an opposite conclusion" in order to refute, it looks like a typical debate between academics to me. I read the 2015 paper as a very thorough literature review that looked at both the "white" and the "gray" studies, does a summary of the strengths and weaknesses of many of them, and is of particular benefit for the things that Alexbrn's paper didn't cover, particularly the most recent material. In short, similar to the Aetna article I linked, these folks who authored the 2015 review have found most of the relevant case studies, good and bad, thus saving folks like you and I hours if not days of searches in Wiley or Science Direct (or MEDLINE, or whatever databases you can access). To the extent that you view their conclusions less useful than the 2014 study, I'd say they do support the 2013 one, and we have no clue what the University politics are with all of these (and we all know that even "peer reviewed" studies can be prone to bias, loosely reviewed, and so on). Montanabw^(talk) 04:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

As an aside, with horse-related stuff, looking past the journals and considering individual study design is quite important; I remember a case where the study design looked great on paper, but they used inexperienced prison convicts to work with newborn foals for a set period of time that didn't factor in the responses of the individual animal, then concluded the thing studied (foal imprint training) "didn't work" -- that was because the design was totally idiotic in its actual methodology. There was another I remember looking at about horse hoof structure, but it was useless because they used mechanically-dried-out cadaver hooves, not fresh hoof material trimmed from live animals... (sigh) I'm sure you know what I mean about how a study can have all the statistical parameters right and still suck...Montanabw^(talk) 04:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not a "typical debate between academics" as I think that there is a clear presumption of a conflict of interest when it comes to people publishing laudatory results while also recommending certain horse-related therapies for mental illness for years before they published their studies in rather third-rate journals. I'm not really interested in sifting through the gray literature. jps (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a particular source for "recommending for years before published" -- and if so, do note. Selby/Smith-Osborne 2013 was a systematic review published in a peer-reviewed journal; Anestis cited and criticized it, but they were looking at things from a slightly different angle, but we have two roughly equal studies and a third literature review that has useful material (and Lintini 2015 is in a peer-reviewed journal, put out under a branch of the American Counseling Association). We all have read MEDRS and SCIRS and know that you need preliminary studies before you can do systematic reviews and meta-analysis, someone has to have an initial interest before the studies even begin -- the grants must be written... but I'm not seeing refs to the folks without scientific credentials, such as Linda Kohanov and such... Montanabw^(talk) 09:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Judicious googling will identify the authors fairly clearly. In any case, I don't see the studies as being equally scholarly. jps (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

So enlighten me, share your "judicious googling." I view evidence as a thing to be weighted, not a black and white proposition. Montanabw^(talk) 04:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll give you a taste: [3]. I think it's best not to dig and delve too much through the predilections of certain authors and their personal associations, but there is enough on the web to demonstrate that Lentini and Knox are not exactly what I would consider independent of the rather more audacious claims about how horses can heal the disturbed and the delusional. jps (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)There's a lot of work being done out there on equestrian art and various philosophies applied to riding, unrelated to health issues; that book is a part of that movement. But more to the point, if we are going to assess the expertise of individuals, one must note that Anestis is from an obscure University, not a full professor and he is a business person also. Though he's an an authority on suicide, and I admire his focus on preventing veteran suicide -- AND was heartened to note that even he didn't think there was any harm to equine therapies, he also clearly is rather cautious about most alternative therapies (the second article notes he is also dubious about music therapies]. Also, he is not a child therapist, which is where a lot of the studies out there are looking. His study inserted a useful word of caution into the field, but it does not invalidate the work of Selby/Smith-Osborne 2013 nor can we discount the very thorough literature review of Lintini. But further, I am rather concerned that you characterize people with mental illness as "disturbed and delusional." That's rather like calling a disabled person a "cripple." Are you among those who view psychotherapy itself as a "pseudoscience?" (That's a sincere question) I want to clarify what your views are before continuing this discussion, as I don't wish to misunderstand or misstate your position... Montanabw^(talk) 17:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Delusion is an actual pathology that people have and is mentioned in the literature. "Mental disturbance" as well as mental disorder has had negative connotations for some (it's on the euphemism treadmill and it is legitimate to ask for someone to use a term that hasn't suffered from problematization yet). If using such terms caused you any distress, I apologize and will strike them from the conversation. Just let me know. I certainly don't begrudge anyone their treatment regimens for personal effects. As far as the evidence goes, mental illness certainly can be helped by a variety of techniques which fall under the vast umbrella of "psychotherapies", but it is not useful to speak in generalities about this. Specific forms of psychotherapies are documented to be pseudoscientific. Others are not.

You may want to dig into the background of Lentini a bit more (which was the point of my taste -- not so much the book discussion she posted on). Realize that she stands to make money from people who accept this as a legitimate therapy modality. Your attempt to impeach Anestis with his institutional affiliation and career position is rather uninformed about the state of academia and laughable in light of Alexa Smith-Osborne's status at UT-Arlington, for example. Moreover, Alison Selby is clearly in the business of making money off of this therapy modality. In effect, the literature supporting the modality seems to be written by conflicted individuals, as I pointed out above. Meanwhile, there is no conflict that I can find from the authors debunking these therapies. As such, this really isn't an academic dispute; this is just a cottage industry being called out for doing the equivalent of astroturfing in out-of-the-way journals.

jps (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course, when people were pointing out in the Monsanto disputes that they paid Stanford University to do peer-reveiwed studies that "proved" that Roundup and GMO seeds were perfectly safe, and I called out that as astroturfing, I got an OTHERSTUFF argument. Most people on the "pro" side of anything have some stake in the outcome, and most people on the "anti" side have been burned, somehow. (I have no idea if Anestis got dumped off a horse when he was 10 and for that matter, I concur with the view that some of the stuff promoted out there is nonsense and some has some legitimate safety concerns -- just not all of it.) My own view is that here we have an emerging field with a lot of anecdotal evidence, but even peer-reviewed studies must be examined critically. The limits to the favorable studies are their design flaws and conflicts of some of the researchers, the limits to the primary critical study is its focus on only a few cherry-picked examples and a narrow field of actual analysis-- adults and veterans. And, it's one study. Montanabw^(talk) 19:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Not a very convincing rejoinder, as OTHERSTUFFEXISTS typically serves. If you want to go argue about Monsanto, do so somewhere else, please. As it is, we have a pretty clear case here where the Anestis paper really has not been shown to have any problems while there is clear and plain evidence of a conflict-of-interest problem with the two papers you seem to be promoting as high-quality representations of the "other side". Invoking WP:GEVAL means we ought to pay most attention to Anestis' analysis. This is a fairly clear case where the WP:SCHOLARSHIP indicates one side of this argument is representing a mainstream and independent evaluation while the other side of this argument are the peddlers of snake oil. jps (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's just take this to the talk page at the Equine Assisted Therapy article. (That was, by the way, a reasonable overview, but I disagreed with the merging, so let's discuss that a bit more) I do not agree with your analysis of Anestis, as Anestis also can be criticized for cherry-picking studies that used very different approaches to equine assisted therapy, so, I would say the review has no robust evidence on which to generalize its negative conclusions about EAP for adults, and it didn't look at the children's therapies much at all. He has his own POV too, he works with veterans and is clearly protective of the therapies used with them. Everyone has a bias and I don't agree that his was particularly robust. Montanabw^(talk) 00:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Heat death of universe

See Temporal finitism. "The physicist P.C.W. Davies deduces a finite-time origin of the universe in a quite different way, from physical grounds: "the universe will eventually die, wallowing, as it were, in its own entropy. This is known among physicists as the 'heat death' of the universe... The universe cannot have existed for ever, otherwise it would have reached its equilibrium end state an infinite time ago. Conclusion: the universe did not always exist." Is that correct? Or will the universe collapse back on itself and explode again? Peter Damian (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Basically correct, as far as we know. For it not to be correct, exotic physics such as the Big Rip need to be invoked, and Occam's Razor makes us skeptical of such possibilities. These days, cosmologists have been emphasizing the entropy problem which is very much an open question to which no one has provided a completely satisfactory answer. That said, eternal inflation may be able to provide you with an "out". The universe "not always existing" could just mean, "not always existing as we currently experience it" which is a much more anemic statement than what I think the article and maybe even many physicists imply. This argument, while clever, is fairly reminiscent of Olber's Paradox which is typically taught as a "proof" that the universe is finite in extent even though there are resolutions to the paradox which allow for a universe that is infinite in extent (and, indeed, there is no firm evidence that the universe is infinite or finite in spatial extent). jps (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I am still puzzled why the universe might not stop expanding, and then gravity would pull it all back into one place again. As I understand, all the matter would end up as energy, and then the whole process might start up again. And how do we know that this hadn't also happened before the Big Bang? Peter Damian (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

In what we might term "classical" cosmology, the gravitational collapse of the universe would always be due to the matter density of the universe being higher than the critical density. There were and still are strong reasons to suspect that the universe's overall curvature indicates a flat geometry which would require, if non-relativistic matter was the current dominant energy source in our universe, a situation where we would be precariously balanced just between a universe that expands forever and one that re-collapses. This was the state of the discourse as of about 1997 or so when dark energy was discovered which, if it is in its most vanilla version, will prevent re-collapse even while preserving the flat geometry. For that reason, infinite expansion and heat death are often advertised as the expected fate of the universe, but it requires believing in a rather uninteresting form of dark energy (equivalent to the cosmological constant) which never changes character and just becomes more and more dominant in our universe as it ever expands towards heat death. However, we have not ruled out that there wasn't something like a cyclic universe that occurred before or indeed could occur in our future given some of the more exotic proposals surrounding dark energy. Whether these exotic proposals violate Occam's Razor is a purely philosophical discussion right now, and there are ongoing campaigns to measure the so-called w parameter which is one way of characterizing whether dark energy is boring or exotic. jps (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I have a timeline at Talk:Temporal_finitism#Interesting_history, comments welcome. It seems that the argument by P.C.W.Davies was anticipated by Kelvin. Peter Damian (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Conspiracy theory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conspiracy (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) 09:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a comment

Perhaps rethink your tone in edit summaries. Doesn't help. (Full disclosure, I once called someone a jackass in an edit summary, but have since reformed my ways. Suggest you do so as well, you won't regret it.) Montanabw^(talk) 23:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep. It's safest to use a bland, uninformative edit summary like "comment" or "reply." That way you don't get dinged for not using edit summaries but neither do you say anything that could be held against you. Of course, I don't follow my own advice. But you have a big enough target painted on your back that you should consider it. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

So hard to tell when you're being genuine these days, Comrade Boris. :) jps (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, it's good advice for all of us, sincere or no. We can always strike something heated we say at a talk page and apologize if we regret our actions; edit summaries are forever unless revdel is appropriate, and we generally can't get revdel for mere impulsiveness. Can't guarantee I'm going to be perfect at it either, but can't see any harm in trying. Montanabw^(talk) 22:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

As Comrade Stalin said, "Keep 'em guessing." Or maybe it was "The people's struggle against fascism encompasses the political sphere as well as the military sphere." The translation is ambiguous. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've only been lurking at the fringe noticeboard for a couple of weeks now (Bigfoot caught my attention), and I can see the range of individuals who show up there pushing stuff I would agree is rather, um (trying to find a neutral word) unorthodox and backed by tendentious reasoning. I can see how it can get tiresome; I just now had to resist writing an edit summary containing an unkind word (on a topic where I did a revert to your version of the article, jps). Normally when I am in a debunking mood, I look at political conspiracy theory stuff rather than questionable science, but seems that similar personalities are involved. However, I do think that it does no good to insult people. If you want to get the content "right," it helps a lot to not stir up emotions because that tends to greatly increase the amount of debate and decrease actual editing and source-searching. We all have real lives and only so much time, and IMHO the less time wasted on personality disputes the better. Montanabw^(talk) 05:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

"Suffering fools gladly" is the adage that many here live by. If you want to see me practicing this foolishly: read this talkpage. jps (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

What strikes me are the number of times I get accused of being mean and bitey, but compared to you guys, I'm the epitome of sweetness and light. Montanabw^(talk) 07:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Your personal attack

You have made a personal attack on me here[4] by stating that people who have researched hair whorls on horses are not sane. Please explain your comment.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

People can research whatever they want. Whorlology, however, is rank pseudoscientific drivel. Sanity is a stand-in term meant to differentiate between well-argued positions and those that are not. My apologizes if I offended people who have had their sanity questioned unfairly or in contexts beyond their control. jps (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

jps, what I said earlier about language applies here. We can discuss the issue without dragging personalities into it or engaging in personal attacks. While I posted about the hair whorl article because I do think it is, most likely, pseudoscience, it doesn't help to subject the other side to ridicule. As we all know, many brilliant theorists we now revere in the field of scientific inquiry had their sanity questioned at one time, and those were the ones who weren't accused of witchcraft... debunk the theory, but stop there. Montanabw^(talk) 19:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Civility is a wonderful thing, but it requires a two-way street. As long as WP:COMPETENCE is a virtue here at Wikipedia, we are going to run into situations where we have to question the intellectual abilities of our fellow database modifiers. How that is done is delicate, perhaps, but as long as people are willing to accept apologies in something like an oops/ouch format, that'll keep things running smoothly. jps (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

We can not stop you from thinking about the intellectual abilities of editors, but we can certainly stop you from writing about that here on Wikipedia. Your comments should not be about contributors, but should be limited to content.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. WP:COMPETENCE exists for a reason. jps (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not so much competence, but inappropriately taking an innocuous comment on subject matter and calling it a personal attack. There was no personal attack in your comment when you read it. You said DrChrissy demonstrated the subject is psuedoscience and that it doesn't look like it's a subject being taken seriously by mainstream scientists. Not commenting on this specific case now, but science (especially fringe stuff) is a tough subject for some people because they can't deal with subject competence and get offended when they are wrong (not a civility violation) or just find offenses grounded in content and take it personally. No idea how to address that, but it's been a recurring distraction. I'm not sure if any of that applies to DrChrissy in this case, but I do suggest they refrain from crying personal attack (even if they've convinced themselves it was) for comments clearly directed at the topic and entirely in line with the kind of descriptions used at FTN. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

What appears to be an offensive attack to a person may have underlying reasons that are legitimate. Sometimes this is simply a matter of changing the wording so as to keep the meaning of the point while avoiding innuendo or unintended slights. E.g., "How could you be so blind?" is a phrase I might use off-the-cuff, but if a visually impaired person pointed out that such a phrase was problematic for them, I would have no problem changing the wording. On the other hand, if I say, "You are incorrect," and a person tells me I'm attacking them, I will not be changing the wording because the offense taken is unavoidable. Unavoidable offense taken by another is not evidence of a lack of civility. Avoidable offense that one refuses to adjust is evidence of a lack of civility, in spite of the common trope that "PC" is ridiculous. Getting away from wording that is problematic is an easy step to take and then we can focus on the pseudoscience being promoted by the likes of DrChrissy. (See, it's not uncivil to say DrChrissy promotes pseudoscience, and even if DrChrissy takes offense, I don't think there is any way to change the wording without abandoning the meaning.) jps (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's remind ourselves (or in the case of Kingofaces43, perhaps he should read the phrase for the first time so his posts mean something) that the phrase in question was questioning my sanity, not my competence. And jps has graciously apologised which obviously means he also considered it to be a personal attack and has tried to redeem himself.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

jps, I disagree that it's not uncivil to say I promote pseudoscience. I actually find it deeply incivil for you to accuse me of something that is false. You have no evidence for my promoting the subject. I may have edited pages in the subject, but that does not mean I promote it. I edit articles on animal pain and animal cruelty; that does not mean I promote pain and cruelty. Related to this, I have noted that under one of your many other account names (you admit to 6 but think you might have forgotten some!...why do you have so many?) you have been warned exactly about this type of incivil behaviour.[5] Please remember your warning and I suggest you edit your accusation as you see fit.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence that you have supported the pseudoscientific claims of various people, but we should not talk about this because you are topic banned from the subject. It is perfectly civil to say, in my estimation, your activism in these areas is promotional of pseudoscience. You can disagree with my characterizations and offer arguments to the contrary, but it is perfectly fine and, in fact, in the best interest of the encyclopedia that we identify pseudoscience POV-pushers such as yourself openly and honestly. jps (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmmmm ok. You are obviously doubling down on your incivility. Will you be supplying any of the "plenty of evidence" here?DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and I am not topic banned from Pseudoscience - you are now deliberately misleading the community in your efforts to malign me. I just scanned down the page of the diff I sent earlier regarding your warning for incivility and noticed that you received sanctions over the warning on at least 6 occasions...mostly for incivility again. I would imagine admins are losing patience with you.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, DrChrissy, but the area of pseudoscience I have identified you supporting is directly related to your topic ban. jps (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Please go ahead and post your supposed evidence of my promoting or POV pushing pseudoscience as you have accused me of. It is up to me whether and how I reply if this is an area from which I am topic banned.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for providing the link to POV-Pushing above. I have just clicked on it. Did you realise it states "Calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil and pejorative,..."? Hmmmmm, I suggest you do some serious redactions here and possibly show enough humility to apologise.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I have to admit, this is the first time I have ever been baited into baiting someone. I won't be taking the bait. In other news, your behavior and comportment demonstrated here and elsewhere are going to be leading you into a siteban, I predict, unless you change course drastically. You are not the first person I've seen behave this way and you will certainly not be the last. The others I've seen act the way you do find their ways to the door sooner or later. Some are pushed rather rudely. jps (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I repeat, please provide evidence for your incivil accusations that I am a POV-pusher and/or promoter of Pseudoscience. Your accusations are completely without foundation.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

OK everyone. STOP. Here's the deal: jps, you would do well to not use inflammatory language; just say things like "I disagree," or "I think you are incorrect" as you used in your example above. You'll make your point and not inflame people. DrC, I don't see a win-win here, and I would hate to see you blocked again because you have been helpful on some articles I've worked on that are outside the scope of your current restrictions, so because I doubt jps will neither present diffs nor apologize, I think it's best not to beat your head against a wall. But jps, your behavior above (and it does sound threatening and insulting) is precisely the type of casting personal aspersions that you really need to stop doing. So let's just close this and move on. Montanabw^(talk) 22:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Moving on is generally a good tactic here at this website, so we agree on that idea. Just so you know, WP:ASPERSIONS was never an arbcom finding nor essay I believed in, and it was not a condition of my release that I buy into that idea. I haven't really found it convincing to do buy that argument, but I appreciate that others at this website live and die by the maxim. jps (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The topic

Whorlology? Seriously? There are no limits to human craziness, it seems. Guy (Help!) 00:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Probably a variation on phrenology, take a look at the article; there's myth there's fake myth (I'm actually not sure there really were "Bedouin legends", personally), and then there is just urban/rural legend. Montanabw^(talk) 02:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Fringe template?

Hi there, do you know if there is a fringe/PS template to tag articles? Perhaps this could be useful for WP. Thanks! Delta13C (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Template:Fringe theories might be what you're looking for, or Template:Undue if you prefer a more subtle message. Sunrise (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Civility

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Incivility (again)

You recently posted the following about my editing. "My comment is that your contributions here are garbage."[6] This clearly violates WP:Civil. Please desist from such edits against me.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It does not violate WP:CIVIL. Your contributions in the discussion were terrible. jps (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of GMO conspiracy theory

Hello! Your submission of GMO conspiracy theory at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

There's been a development. As per the text above, please take a look as soon as you can.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 14:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

I've started a discussion about your editing at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Please comment there. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)