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)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited GMO conspiracy theories, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zika virus outbreak (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) 09:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at White pride, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Accusing other edits of being White supremcists is absolutely unacceptable. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I was talking about the source. Please be more careful before templating the regulars. jps (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps make a dummy edit to clarify or specify that on the talk page? As they are, it seems you're referring to another editor. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that's standard operating procedure on Wikipedia. jps (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@EF, For the life of me, I can't see how you get from "American Renaissance (magazine) is a white supremacist publication" to an accusation that another editor is a white supremacist. The only way I can get this to parse is if one of the editors concerned is the publisher of that magazine. Is that the case? If not, perhaps you read jps's comment too quickly and misunderstood. We all do that from time to time. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I was curious myself on that. I think they were referring to this diff where the edit note says, "rv white supremacist edits". --David Tornheim (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The way I read it was that the user was being referred to as a white supremacist. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Stop edit warring please. You've been going at this for days. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Why do you insist on including white supremacist text in Wikipedia? jps (talk) 04:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Experiment

Hi there!

I'm the one who started that discussion on the village pump regarding username policies. I would like you to help me by conducting the following experiment with your account. Could you, while logged in, navigate to the NLWIKI? No need to do anything there, just go there so that your account will appear as newly created on the wiki. That way I can see if the folks there really have enforce this "confusing username" policy.

Many thanks! <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I received some sort of block message over there, it seems. jps (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. I was wondering why you did not get blocked. Could you please make a couple more edits on NLWIKI, perhaps in the article namespace, as to draw further attention from admins. Thanks, <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

American Politics 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 edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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.

Template:Z33 James J. Lambden (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you the famous GamerGater? jps (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Joshua, I warned you on the ANI page that this kind of commentary is blockable--not that you didn't know that already, of course. Also, I suggest you stop referring to sundry IP editors as trolls; not only is it blockable, but it also makes you look bad. Just some friendly advice from your neighborhood admin. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. It's really frustrating seeing how these GamerGater accounts are gaming the system. I'm probably not the right person to deal with them. Inserting this racist stuff into Wikipedia does actually cause harm. jps (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Well, I prefer to deal with behavior based on evidence in the particular case. From GamerGate to racism is a bit of a leap--and I'm serious, this kind of leap (really, this is ad hominem--"you're a GamerGater so I don't have to take you seriously") is not acceptable. As you saw I agree with you on one half of the content issue, and if I need to support that case somewhere else you can ping me. As far as administrative involvement, since I'm 50/50 with you on this matter I think I'm objective enough, and I hope that your detractors feel the same way. If I were to block you, or to have blocked you, it would have been for some variety of NPA, not because you were editing disruptively in the article, which I don't think you were (but maybe I haven't looked very closely). Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I found your argument compelling, but...

...you said For example, Atsme above compares the canine sensitivity to theobromine to an idea that maybe energetic meridians exist. No, that isn't what I was comparing - you pigeonholed my thought process and assumed incorrectly. I was simply pointing out that there are differences between humans and animals and things that may not affect humans might prove detrimental to horses and vice versa. If I was referring to energetic meridians, (???), I would have mentioned it in my example. My argument was that it is best left to the experts to decide how best to write articles about topics in their relative areas of expertise without being handcuffed by poorly defined boundaries.

I'm old enough to know that what might work for one person (or animal) doesn't necessarily work for all. However, when writing WP articles, we have been advised repeatedly that OR is unacceptable; therefore, we are obligated to cite RS; when it involves humans, MEDRS is the prevailing guideline which is not difficult or overly complicated to understand. The problems arise when articles that relate to both humans and animals happen to intersect - such as with insecticides, GMOs, etc. An article about equine leg injuries is altogether different but what we're seeing is bleed over into the human aspects of how complementary (alternative) treatments are used and may apply. I also find it puzzling that MEDRS would even be a factor in how articles about such things, like how equine injuries are treated. Furthermore, if universities are teaching acupuncture and other complementary or alternative methods as part of their veterinary curriculum, and if accredited veterinary journals are publishing reviews and articles on topics such as acupuncture, then I would think they could be cited as RS per WP:PAG. That's pretty much it in a nutshell where I'm concerned. Atsme^📞📧 04:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

You are essentially accusing me of committing the fallacy of composition, but it seems that you don't really understand the point I'm making. It is immaterial (though unsurprising) to me that acupuncture has been shown to be essentially ineffective in humans beyond the placebo effect. (And, yes, the placebo effect does exist in non-human animals.) What I'm saying is far more fundamental than efficacy trials.

Acupuncture is a subject which involves a perspective about how the natural world (biological world included) operates. We know that this perspective is incorrect because the fundamental concept it relies upon (the existence of qi) has no empirical nor theoretical basis. Now some acupuncturists claim that even though the primary claim of mechanism is without basis, acupuncture might still work. The claim is that somehow poking something with needles induces a sympathetic response in the immune or endocrine system. This proposal, however, has never passed even one simple test in humans/animals/rocks... anything. Other times, claims of efficacy are made that there entirely new physiologies that acupuncture interacts with (claimed to be in all vertebrate life!). Rank pseudoscience, deleted from Wikipedia. This is the state of mechanistic claims regarding acupuncture.

It is just a fact that veterinarians use acupuncture, many at higher rates than medical doctors. There are no justifications for this that aren't based in pseudoscientific reasoning.

jps (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

To begin, I didn't accuse you of anything and find the basis for your conclusion rather peculiar. I've been the one trying to engage you in polite discourse while you've been accusatory and condescending as evidenced by your responses at ANI. I won't belabor the point or allow myself to be baited as a recipient of PAs so I hope you will exercise restraint, and help me to better understand your position. I'm curious to know why you think your POV on this particular animal topic trumps that of others when your POV clearly contradicts information published in reputable veterinary science journals, such as American Association of Equine Practitioners, or Journal of Equine Veterinary Science, not to mention what is being taught by academic specialists as evidenced by the UF College of Veterinary Medicine. Few common sense editors wouldn't find that confusing. You keep saying the treatments are not "science-based" despite academic/scientifically published information that demonstrates otherwise. You also keep citing WP:CIR and suggesting that editors shouldn't contribute to articles if they fail to see things your way but I fail to see what makes you, an astronomer, qualified to trump the writings of an academic who actually is an animal expert? It actually appears to be a case of conflicting science. Atsme^📞📧 13:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

You haven't engaged with the major point. There is no evidence for the mechanistic basis for acupuncture. None. Until you come to terms with what that means, it will be quite difficult to move forward. You're also seeing personal attacks and condescension where there is none. I am simply pointing out a basic fact of the way things are (that there is no scientific evidence that qi exists). Wikipedia articles need to not imply otherwise. It doesn't matter if some veterinarians don't understand this basic point and fundamental basis for the claims of acupuncture. All that matters is that there is no mechanistic basis for the subject. That doesn't mean that we have to pretend that acupuncture is never done on non-human animals (quite the opposite), but it does mean that we need to make it clear that those who practice acupuncture are engaging in a practice that is based wholly on a belief for which there is zero scientific evidence. jps (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

In trying to put everything into perspective in order to better understand what you've been saying, I've become more confused because of the scientific evidence, not despite it. The following systematic review titled Effectiveness of acupuncture in veterinary medicine, it was concluded that, On the basis of the findings of this systematic review, there is no compelling evidence to recommend or reject acupuncture for any condition in domestic animals. Some encouraging data do exist that warrant further investigation in independent rigorous trials. [7] Hmmmm. And then I found the following systematic review in Rheumatology, an Oxford Journal (IF 4.435), which concluded, All the studies suggested that acupuncture was effective in the short-term relief of lateral epicondyle pain. Five of six studies indicated that acupuncture treatment was more effective compared to a control treatment. [8] Hmmmm, again. I also found the following article in Veterinary Practice News, which makes sense to me with regards to origins of the terminology and intent: The Scientific Basis Of Acupuncture Pathways. Based on just those 3 sources, and there are many more, your argument that those who practice acupuncture are engaging in a practice that is based wholly on a belief for which there is zero scientific evidence is, well...scientifically unsupported. I'm citing MEDRS references; i.e., two systematic reviews in reputable journals. I don't see how you can insist that your POV is accurate when there is scientific evidence that disputes it. [[File:|25px|link=]] Atsme^📞📧 15:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

You still aren't dealing with the fundamental issue which is that the mechanistic basis is lacking. Even that rather wooly blog you finally posted makes my point rather than claiming any scientific basis. The blog tries to claim it could be (or maybe is -- they don't explain how they know) the nervous system or the capacitance system of the vena cava which does the trick in providing a realistic mechanism, but the writer offers no coherent explanation for how needling is supposed to do anything to affect any physiological change that is associated with the claimed outcomes. The writer says there are scientific explanations that skeptics discount and to support that claim only cites the skeptics discounting it! In other words, the claimed mechanistic basis is solely on the basis of the writer's say-so, which is kinda her point. She is saying that all the discussion (and this includes in certain corrupt journals you seem to be fond of that are held hostage by true believers in acupuncture) swirls around qi rather than her preferred mechanism. So there are no sources which explain how acupuncture can realistically work! Yikes!

To be clear, you really aren't "citing" anything that provides any counter to my fundamental argument. You're just throwing sources up that either talk about efficacy (irrelevant as I pointed out) without discussing what the basis is for ever even getting started with acupuncture or lament the current pseudoscientific state of the discourse. I don't understand what's so hard about this for you. jps (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I do appreciate your taking the time to explain. It's certainly food for thought. The conflict arises because MEDRS approved systematic reviews dispute your fundamental argument. They have either concluded that it works or failed to prove that it doesn't and all agree that further study is needed, while your argument demands more proof for why it works regardless of efficacy, without obligation to accept any of the reasons given and with little to no regard for the published scientifically based conclusions in quality systematic reviews. Such reviews are the basis for accepting or rejecting the science and for whatever reason, you're not convinced, so yes, I find that extremely confusing considering science in and of itself is nothing more than the study of observation and experiment. The latter is why we depend on MEDRS approved systematic reviews so when you completely disregard them, and then claim your point was made, well...it only serves to make your expectations seem astonomical. 😆 Atsme^📞📧 16:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Please be advised that WP:MEDRS is not WP:SCIRS and medicine is not science. In principle, medicine doesn't care why something works only that it works. This is why systematic reviews of efficacy are the currency of WP:MEDRS. What I'm talking about is far more fundamental and it speaks not to the questions of medical claims in articles but rather to the points about evidence and lack thereof.

Asprin is a good example. We knew asprin worked well before we knew why it worked. Fair enough. The claims that acupuncture works are made in rather poorly controlled ways in studies that do not stand up to scrutiny. Nevertheless, we know there is a vested interest for acupuncturists and believers in acupuncture to push their claims of efficacy because if acupuncture is found not to be effective they are out of jobs! I get the impulse to produce "positive" literature (pharmaceutical companies are guilty of this too), but this is not the point I'm making. The problem comes when people claim that somehow a bunch of studies that say that horses gain flexibility after getting acupuncture can be criticized from a number of perspectives, but the fundamental criticism is the lack of a mechanistic basis. We know that if we do something, we are primed psychologically to expect an outcome. That often leads us astray. If we have reason to believe that something will effect an outcome (for example, we notice that a particular chemical shares characteristics with substances that engage in known biochemical processes), it becomes reasonable to start carefully looking to verify if something works. If there is no reason to think that something will work (say, sungazing), trial studies become highly questionable. That's the WP:REDFLAG standard that seems to be missing in your analysis. jps (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Did you see this interesting piece on "advocacy research". I think we're entering a difficult time (on Wikipedia) where it's going to be necessary to point out sometimes that certain concepts are obvious nonsense so no source X ain't gonna be used (this has happened a few times already, and luckily there have been enough good editors around to make the point). I think some editors think that our sourcing guidelines are an excuse to turn their brains off (particularly when it suits them to do so). Alexbrn (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I have argued a lot that Wikipedia's fetish for peer reviewed articles is a double-edged sword. It works fine until the editorial boards stop doing their job which is something that is happening with increasing frequency. I mean, PLOS ONE published a creationist paper! This is because there is no attempt made to determine what the qualifications of the peer reviewer have to be. If you get another acupuncturist to review your acupuncture omnibus paper on how acupuncture cures autism, think they're going to reject it? Think again! jps (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, and it's in epidemic proportions. JPS, your explanation to me above was actually quite helpful. I didn't realize we had WP:SCIRS so it's good to know, even as an essay. I just read an article (promo?) at UTCVM Large Animal Clinical Sciences which mentions there are around 350 or so animal-specific articles on PubMed regarding acupuncture. In fact, PubMed is where I found the two systematic reviews. Universities across the US are graduating herds of veterinary practitioners who will be employing alternative treatments for animals. UTCVM also claims that recent equine acupuncture research using the rigorous scientific method has been done to demonstrate how it works and validate its benefits. I didn't write that - they did. Most of the publishers of the journals and open source articles about equine complementary or alternative treatments are reputable, including works submitted by animal science departments at renowned universities, like Texas A&M, Colorado State, and Cornell. I already showed you the Oxford Journal article. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I don't have a dog in this particular fight because I don't even edit those kinds of articles so I actually can appreciate both sides of the argument. My concern focuses more on editor retention and accuracy, and quite frankly I don't see how anyone can justify the fringe/ps argument when we're inundated with quality RS that both scientifically and academically support the efficacy of the treatments. While the efficacy argument may make your skin crawl, it is a supported argument validated by scientists; therefore, scientifically supported. Granted, such treatments are typically employed after conventional methods have failed, which is certainly a common sense approach. Perhaps there is some concern that it may someday replace some of the mainstream conventions, I don't know, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. What I do know is that the WP:SCIRS essay isn't going to trump MEDRS guidelines, so have you thought about getting it promoted as a guideline? I'm not advocating for or against anything, rather I'm just summarizing the reality of the situation based on the evidence and what it's doing to our good editors, some of whom are reputable experts in their fields, like you for example. It's clearly a dilemma, and I hate to see us losing good editors because of conflicts that actually can be resolved if some genuine effort is exerted in that direction. TBs don't work and neither do blocks, as you well know. So what are some viable alternatives, and at what point can we agree to compromise in order to accommodate RS that are properly cited for information in articles written by editors and/or experts with opposing views; both being correct? Atsme^📞📧 21:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, Atsme. For your sake and the sake of a bunch of other people, I really hope you are not entering back into altmed topics. This has gone disastrously in the past - the Griffin article, the Kombucha article.... everyone was miserable and what you set out to do, you could not get done. Please don't go back there. Please. I won't say more than this as I don't want to get into a tangle with you. Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Listen, there is no reason to discount efficacy studies, but people often interpret them in the wrong way. When a study points to an outcome being "more effective than a placebo", that doesn't necessarily mean that the particular treatment is effective, especially when the outcomes being measured are subjective (as a lot of the ailments associated with acupuncture are). Part of the reason for this is just simple chance and random noise. If you randomly throw darts at a dart board, 50% of them will be closer to the bullseye. Good rule of thumb is that about 50% of ineffective treatments will show evidence that they are more effective than a placebo. It's not quite as bad as this since statistics can sometimes help, but statistics are notorious for being poorly done in alt med studies. Please do me a favor and read what Edzard Ernst has written on acupuncture. He is a very thoughtful person on the subject. jps (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, JPS - I will do as you suggested. Atsme^📞📧 21:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The Ten Things article was quite interesting as was Ernst. With all sincerity, I appreciate your expertise and believe WP is lucky to have editors like you, when you're not misbehaving. 😇 My response is a long one but not nearly as long as the articles you recommended, so consider it a blessing of sorts. My dilemma arises from a slightly different perspective and what I think may have caused some of the misunderstandings and disagreements in the past. I believe that we are obligated to present information in a dispassionate tone; not an easy task, for sure, especially if we don't like or agree with certain aspects of a particular topic. That's why good collaboration is essential. For example, while it may appear to some that I advocate for acupuncture, my RL position on the topic is quite the opposite; however, I make it a point to leave my personal views hanging neatly on the login lever. I actually tried acupuncture once last year on Bonaire after being prodded to give it a try by a nurse/dietician with advanced degrees. Needles weren't involved so please don't needle me over it. I still have tinnitus after following a regimen that resulted in me waking up one morning with a small magnet stuck to my left nostril. 😬 Back in the late 70s when we were helping vets/academics (Potter, Householder & Yeates) from Texas A&M develop embryo transfers in mares, (we provided the facility with on-premises lab, the studs, donor and recipient mares), our ranch vet (who we kept on retainer year round) came to us with noticeable enthusiasm about their equine acupuncture class. Curiosity moved my lips and out came an invitation for him to practice on a cribber, but I never advanced beyond low expectations. To say the horse was a chronic cribber would reflect overzealous optimism. That sucker was advanced to the point a spiked cribbing collar didn't stop him...and neither did acupuncture....or a pointy-toed boot in his arse.

All humor aside, when editing a BLP about people who sincerely believe in such things for whatever reason, it is our obligation as writers to include what that BLP says he believes and why, including his/her primary motivation, etc. We don't have to agree with it. A BLP should not be written like a systematic review in a scientific journal which is basically a review board's assessment of facts, clinical trials, and documented case studies, etc. supported by scientific evidence that results in a conclusion. I get that, and I also know that we should not discount science; however, our first obligation is to comply with the 3 core content policies, NPOV, NOR, and V which does not allow for OR or our own biases and POV (expert or otherwise) to taint the presentation, the latter of which is first and foremost.

Hypothetical example: John Pinpoint is an advocate of acupuncture, believing in its efficacy and curative benefits, yada, yada. Pinpoint authored a book titled "Acupuncture for Dummies 101" which was inspired by his friend, Joe Dopinshurt, a DO at a respected clinic who offered documented results of the benefits according to his own clinical trials. We write something to the effect that, while there is no good scientific evidence^{supporting citation} that supports Pinpoint's belief in acupuncture, he was inspired by his friend, Joe Dopinshurt, a DO who presented him with documented clinical trials he conducted^{supporting citation}...yada yada. <---- we tell the story, we don't denigrate the guy or castigate him in his BLP because doing so has resulted in the constant hammering and chipping away of WP credibility from outside influences. I'm not saying we need to compromise on undisputed scientific evidence, rather I'm saying we need to rethink if a simple modification to syntax is really all that bad if it helps to resolve disputes. We should not censor information that is based on a humanitarian perspective by insisting that science is the only path to valuable knowledge. I'm justifiably concerned that if we continue to attack BLPs in the manner I've seen done, we will lose ground to negative outside influences because of the constant chipping away at WP's credibility. No good comes from discrediting a BLP simply because a group of editors oppose his/her views or beliefs. Such attacks are backfiring on us, and we're not only running out of editors, we are losing readers which is now a primary concern of the WMF. Calling John Pinpoint an arsehat and using his BLP as a coatrack to discredit his beliefs does not lend credibility to WP regardless of whether or not the science supports his views. It's all about the presentation much of which can be gaged on public response. Common sense tells us that when the public responds to WP with harsh criticism and WP-bashing, and those types of articles keep increasing on the internet, then Houston, we have a problem.

JPS, I respect that you are programmed to see things from a scientific perspective and I hope you will respect that I am programmed to disseminate the same information from a slightly different perspective that lends a proper amount of consideration and weight to the humanities. I strongly believe that we need each other to achieve both a level of accuracy our readers deserve while still presenting it in a way they can easily understand and relate to in order to draw their own conclusions. We should not be "force-feeding" information. Articles that are written from an unyielding, harsh, this guy is a wingnut POV will cost us more readers than we will gain, and that makes our future unsustainable. I actually do have extensive experience working with scientists (Army Corps, BLM, US Geological Survey, NOAA, etc.) by helping them with public dissemination, much of which was on an international scale; no easy task but a great deal of fun, nonetheless. I made lifelong friends as a result, and as you well know, it's not easy to make friends with a scientist. 😄 For decades, fish & wildlife biologists clashed with Army Corps engineers and scientists. In retrospect, I consider one of my biggest accomplishments occurring in the early 90s when I brought together two large groups of people who were on opposing sides, but all were equal participants in the same project. It was for the private screening of the PBS documentary, Sturgeon: Ancient Survivors. I hosted a post screening barbecue here at the ranch and the camaraderie brought about by that event was remarkable. From that point forward, I was delighted to witness major changes in the way the Corps communicated with fish & wildlife biologists. You can actually see the trend evolving in the documentary. Several more projects developed over the years as a result and with many of the same people. They never failed to ask if there'd be a barbecue at the ranch following the screening. In summation, I just hope that I've left you with a sense that I'm not anti-science or pro-anything. I'm simply conveying that we should all work a little harder at collaborating amicably to work out the kinks, and that we shouldn't discount scientifically supported evidence anymore than we should discount the humanities. I'm concerned that if we do, we will neither gain nor maintain the quintessential audience WP needs to survive. I'll leave you with that, and wish you only the best. Atsme^📞📧 20:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I think I agree with just about everything you say, but I would add two additional points.

First, there is sometimes a dangerous tendency to allow "BLP"s to become coatracks for the belief of the subject. My personal preference might be to delete most BLPs in Wikipedia. But please understand that we are basically on the same page. WP:FRINGEBLP was written because of a push I made, you know.

The second point I will add is that unlike most people here, I am not a believer in the Wikipedia model. To be clear my agenda is to provide the best education possible for students who uncritically access this website. I wish they didn't uncritically access this website, but they do. If Wikipedia were to cease to exist tomorrow, I would migrate to whatever replaced it (in some ways, I already have). That said, I think that my (lack of) belief in Wikipedia ideology ultimately doesn't matter and my agenda in the end is probably better for Wikipedia as a movement than many other agendas, but there will always be a little bit of tension between the goal of providing the best education and the goal of making Wikipedia survive. This is perhaps best exemplified by my disdain for a lot of the behavioral guidelines that are meant to attract and retain editors regardless of the level of education or skill the editor has. On the other hand, when I see an excellent new editor, I try to make it so that they'll stay because we do need all the help we can get with these 5 million articles.

So there you have it, I think that's where our disagreement lies predominately. I always sorta guessed we were close to being on the same page, but I think sometimes you saw spooks were there were just assholes and sometimes I was just an asshole.

jps (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)