This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
Archive 1
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Valjean. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Your latest edit to the Alternative medicine page appears to be a copy/paste, and maybe a copyvio. I've reverted it, could you perhaps write up a summary, and reference to the study itstead? Ronabop16:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm still learning and appreciate the helpful suggestions. Now I need help with the Alternative medicine section about "Problems with the label "alternative"". It's far too shallow and needs supporting arguments, but AED doesn't seem to think so. -- Fyslee06:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Check the talk archives and article history for some of the discussions on the labels used, but let me warn you, the archives and history are *filled* with acrimonious and contentious debates on the labels used (CAM, C/AM, AM, etc.). Some of the old POV warriors may have left, but to drag out an old cliché, "there be monsters there". I guess if nothing else, the history of that article can teach you a lot about the difficult sides of wikipedia. :-) Ronabop07:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not at all surprised...;-) As the Assistant Listmaster for the Healthfraud Discussion List, I'm used to dealing with this stuff daily, and often feel we are dealing with cultists, rather than people who use rational arguments. There are some who do stick to reason and evidence, but not many. If the subject interests you, you're welcome to join.....;-) -- Fyslee09:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
If you want to know what I think, please feel free to ask rather than speculate. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so copying and pasting abstracts or quotes is a lazy, inappropriate way to build an article. By referencing "POV warriors" and "monsters", I'm not sure if Ronabop is referring to me or not, but I'm quite sure an examination of the article and Talk page histories there will show that there are no double standards in my edits. I would suggest paraphrasing the information you would like included with appropriate references. AED17:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
"There be monsters here" is an old map-making joke... when it was used, it was a reminder of difficult territory, or realms that were hard to navigate through (rough seas, high winds, etc.). POV warriors are usually folks who fill articles with their particular POV, swamping out dissent. If you crawl through the Alternative Medicine archives, you can see Mr. Natural Health adding in loads of references on his POV (hence, the massive reference section), to the point where skeptics were overloaded in attempts at equally representing their POV. It's not an uncommon tactic on wikipedia. FWIW, I wasn't referring to anybody in particular... POV warriors come in all shapes, sizes, and POV's. Later, other folks come in with another POV, and drastically change articles, and that's why wikipedia is good. We get to hash it out, until we aproximate "truth" . Ronabop13:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi AED,
As a newcomer here, I appreciate all the help I can get. I can see what you mean about too many quotes, etc. I have a suggested solution. I'm not sure if it's proper to do it, so let me know what you think.
How about if I create another page for the quotes and references, and then just leave a link to that page in the article?
Per WP:WWIN, Wikipedia is not the proper place for a collection of quotes. If you're interested in doing that, check out Wikiquote for links to the Wikiquote websites. References and citations should go at the bottom of the article in a section entitled "References". I've created a sandbox for you at User:Fyslee/Sandbox. Keep up the good work. AED19:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The reference section is for references, not for collecting quotations. If there is a certain point you are attempting to make, try posting the quote(s) on the Talk page. If we allow one POV to post quotes, then the other POV must be allowed to do the same. The article then becomes a list of quotes rather than an encyclopedia article. AED21:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I have looked at Wikiquote and Wikisource, and am not sure which one is most appropriate, if at all.
Maybe I'll try putting them in the "References" section, as you suggest. I hope AED finds that acceptable....;-)
As it is now, the section about "Problems with the label "alternative"" - while quite true - is opinion without any documentation. An encyclopedia deserves better than that. While the Dawkins quote is a good one, it doesn't quite fit the bill. (It should be at the top in a "Definition" section.) I have better quotes for documentation.
Try to keep the "Definition" as straight and encyclopaedic in style as possible. Use the "Discussion" section for editorialising
Use the references section for footnotes to books and other sources
END TEMPLATE
SCAM
Recently, an article you wrote, SCAM, was deleted. The information in the article was insufficient to make it notable enough to qualify for an article. Feel free to recreate the article after a few weeks if you feel you can include new information asserting its notability. Don't forget to cite your sources. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia!--File Éireann23:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion! I'll work on it.
A longer version of what was deleted can be found here at SkepticWiki - [1] - where SPOV is encouraged. -- Fyslee
Chiro category questions
Yeah, all stub templates automatically link with categories - but if you use "subst" on a template then save, it simply substitutes the template with its actual code and you can take out bits of it (like the category link).
As to the self-referential category, that's not really a bad thing - articles and categories are in different "spaces" of wikipedia, and quite often a category will have the same name as the main article in it. The problems only really come if someone tries to put a category into itself - that leads to an endless loop. Grutness...wha?00:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, let me see if I understand you correctly. I'll use an illustration:
If the article were about an American dialect, lets say Southern, then it could be categorized as Southern dialect. If that were the only article on the Southern dialect, using it as its own category would lead to an endless loop, IOW it would be pointless. It should instead be categorized under American Dialects. That would be useful information.
OTOH, if there were several articles about the Southern dialect, written on its differenct aspects (Georgian, Texan, etc.), then they would all be in the Southern dialect category, so it would be Okay. Fine.
But shouldn't they all, or at least the one article that was the major one, also be in a category called American Dialects?
Similarly, shouldn't an article with no other title than Chiropractic, also be placed under the category Alternative Medicine? To place it under Chiropractic would create an endless loop, and would provide no context or additional useful information on the subject.
Lots of other chiropractic subcategories (such as Toggle Recoil, Subluxation, BJ Palmer, etc.) would of course be in the Chiropractic category (with BJ Palmer also being in the Famous Quacks category......;-)
My way of thinking tells me that Chiropractic should at least also be in the Alternative Medicine category.
I see no reason for the repeated attempts to remove the Chiropractic article from the Alternative Medicine category. That is the only way to provide additional, useful, information.
what you're missing is that the chiropractic category is in Category:Alternative medicine. Chiropractic care is going to have enough articles to have its own category, but all of those articles are about a subset of Alternative medicine, so Category:Chiropractic is a subcategory of Category:Alternative medicine - it's in a box within the main box. To use your earlier example, if you clicked on the American dialects category, you'd see several articles, but you'd also see a some subcategories. Southern Dialects would be one of them, along with - say - New England Dialects and Western Dialects. When the Southern Dialects category is new, it might only have the Southern Dialect article in it, but any later articles, on Texan, or Arkansas or whatever, would be added to it as they were written. Hope that helps!
That makes sense. What I still am missing is the larger context in which to place Chiropractic. Since it is a subcategory of Alternative Medicine, there should be no reason that it can't also be in that category, just as the Subluxation article is listed in two categories - Medical terms & Chiropractic - which is also logical.
I'll add that category, since doing so will only improve things. It would only be some types of chiropractors who would have an interest in distancing themselves from alternative medicine, who would be interested in removing it from that category, but we're not in Wonderland, where Humpty Dumpty says: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." Things don't work that. It belongs in that category. -- Fyslee11:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
As to the stub template, yes, please put the "ral" template back on when the article's ready to go in the main article space! :) Grutness...wha?05:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
One cannot make a category self-referential. It doesn't make sense. Chiropractic is a subcategory of Alternative medicine. I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, but chiropractic needs to be in the most appropriate category, and that would be chiropractic. --CDN9913:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Now I understand what you mean. You're talking about the article "Chiropractic", which of course should be among other articles dealing with chiropractic. Fine. -- Fyslee
Making categories
Making a category is as simple as making a new article - but instead of typing zxc and following the red link to create an article called zxc, you'd type Category:zxc then follow the red link in the same way. All the details you want to know can be found at Wikipedia:Categorization. Be careful, though, because category names are a little more strictly controlled than article names, and it's harder to change the name if it's wrong the first time. Certainly Category: Physical Therapists / Physiotherapists wouldn't be accepted (the capitalization is wrong (no capital "t" in therapists) and obliques ("/") aren't used in categories unless they can't be avoided.Category: Physiotherapists would be a good name, though (I'm surprised we don't already have it!) or possibly Category:Physical therapists and physiotherapists, though that doesn't sound quite as good (I don't know enough about the difference between the two, or even if there is one - ironic, since my dad used to wok as a physiotherapist!). Grutness...wha?23:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
The difference is one of English "dialect" for the generic professional title, otherwise the same profession:
Sorry to keep removing your passages on DD Palmer from the Chiropractic page. A lot of this information would be better suited for his biography page. We are trying to keep this page clear and concise like the History section of pages such as Osteopathy.
Levine211222:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'll settle for moving most of it when I get the time.
There is one small paragraph that I'll restore, as it is essential to the question of origins, and thus the History section.
Ha ha! Don't tempt me.....;-) No, seriously, it's just an important part of understanding the origins. -- Fyslee
In order to judge whether he was "kooky" or not, one has to understand the spiritualist movement back then. It was a regular religion, with church services, summer camp meetings, etc. There were many famous spiritualists, including A.T. Still, so Palmer was just one of many. Speaking of Still, here's a short article: [5]
Here is more:
The second event was the emergence of Spiritualism, an aggregate system of beliefs that began to form in the years before the American civil war, that held, among other metaphysical beliefs, that commication with the dead was possible. The importance of Spiritualism to the development of wholistic healing systems in America and the western world cannot be over estimated. Spiritualism began around 1830 and began examining and incorporating alternative spiritual beliefs as it evolved. One of the more important thinkers the movement drew on was Emmanuel Swedenborg, a Swedish visionary of the early 18th century, who claimed to communicate with and see into invisible levels of being. Spiritualism also incorporated the ideas of Mesmer and his followers. Spiritualists began offering healining in the manner of the mesmerists, which by this time had developed into two branches, mesmerism and magnetic healing. Mesmerists by the end of the 18th century had begun to put people into a trance state for the purposes of diagnosis and the visonary exploration of invisible realms. Scientific hypnotism grew from this branch of mesmerism. The other phase of mesmerism, magnetic healing, consisted of light touch energy healing with the hands, and included non-touch healing that was called "mesmeric passes." This is in fact the ancestor and origin of what we now call energy healing or energy medicine.
Almost every field of healing that was being practiced, developed or invented in the 19th century was influenced by Spiritualism and Mesmerism. A great many healers of the era began to adopt and expand these philosophies of the invisible. Some of these healers included herbalists, homeopaths, naturopaths, water cure doctors, natural hygenists, electrical therapists and others. Magnetic healing soon began to develop into its own specialty beyond Spiritualism and the pure from of mesmeric-magnetic healing. Schools of magnetic healing were opend all over the country, especially in the mid-west. Two well known students of Spiritualism and magnetic healing were Daniel D. Palmer and A.T. Still. Palmer later created chiropractic and Still created osteopathy, the two modern versions of bone-setting and spinal manipulation.
Chiropractic and osteopathy both hold that disease and dysfunction in the body relate to blockage of the vital life force by structural interference. In chiropractic it is nervous system that is deemed to be the primary carrier of the life force. In osteopathy it is the blood stream and arterial blood supply. Many magnetic healers held that a fluid travelled along the nerve pathways. The flow of this fluid was interfered with by structural abnormalities, particularly misalignment of the spine, where the nerves branch out from the spinal cord.
In magnetic healing, the healer held one hand one the back side of the body on the spine and one hand over the diseased organ or dysfunctional body part. A healing current was mentally willed to pass from one hand to the other and thus release the interference of the nerve flow to the body part. This was in fact a very practical and workable method that brought results. Another technique was to make magnetic or mesmeric passes, the hands not touching the body, from head to toe, to balance and re-vitalize the currents of the body. In addition to both these methods, healers who used the magnetic method also began to develop a sensitivity to the life force or "energy field," and began to intuitively feel the sites of pain and dysfunction by scanning the body with their hands.D.D. Palmer and A.T. Still both utilized these methods. At some point Still began to see that fluid circulation was impaired in addition to nervous derangement due to structural interference. He began to use massge and manipulation of the spine to free up blood flow in addition to magnetic healing. Later Palmer followed suit, focusing more on freeing the nerve impluses from the spine to the organs with spinal adjustments. They both opened schools to teach their methods.[6]
My intentions were the same as yours (i.e. I agree alt. med. is pseudoscience); it's just that you had Category:Pseudoscience under Category:Alternative medicine, and vice versa. I changed things so that Cat:Alt. med. was under Pseudoscience, but not the other way around. You also had Cat: Professional CAM treatments under Cat:Alt med, and vice versa. But right now, Alt. med. is under Pseudoscience (alt. med. is a subsection of pseudoscience) and Fraud, and Pseudoscience is under Fraud. Things were just a bit mixed up. (my talk) --CDN9923:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Where can I find the correct order for these categories? I read somewhere here that the category system isn't strictly a tree structure, but that it is possible to go in circles. I don't intend to do that. Since those categories overlap only partially, I felt it safer to list them all.
It doesn't make much difference now, since a pro-chiro user has been making the same reversions you have just made, and I don't want to bother doing this all over again.
Fyslee, I was trying to be civil about this, but I see what you're doing here. Calling Chiropractic a "pseudoscience" absolutely 100% breaks the NPOV. If you want to say that its roots were in spiritualism, hey that's fine. It's part of the history. I can hardly think of any form of medicine without roots in spiritualism. But know this: Today chiropractic is a science. Doctors, yes DOCTORS of Chiropractic are accredited physicians who gain as much knowledge of the human anatomy as an MD in the 4 years of intensive research and study one receives at a chiropractic college (which is a heck of a lot more than a physiotherapist.) Chiropractic is not magic. It is not a religion. It is not a cult. It is a SCIENCE by all definitions of the word science. As it is not aligned with mainstream medicine (as far as the ruling pharmaceutical and medical lobbies are concerned), it is therefore classified as an "Alternative Medicine" - end of story. And yes, CDN99, Alternative Medicine is still a scientific classification. Chiropractors, homeopaths, osteopaths, et cetera are proud of this distinction of being an alternative to cutting the body open and loading it up with unnatural chemicals. I'm glad another user caught this edit of yours. I will always be monitoring this article for unfairness from hereon. I have nothing but time on my side. So please, feel free to add to the knowledge-base if you like, but refrain from making your potshots and attacks. Save your skeptical, unscientific opinions for your little blog. Please leave Wikipedia as a place for clear, unbiased knowledge. Levine211205:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
That depends on where you are. In the USA they aren't "alternative", but in Europe they certainly are. The two branches have taken very different courses. -- Fyslee05:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've been civil about it all along, so you don't need to get defensive. Keep in mind that as a Moderator for the National Association for Chiropractic Medicine'sdiscussion forum, as well as for Chirotalk, I have contact with plenty of chiros from both sides of the issues. I'm used to dealing with both sides, which is a rather interesting experience. Most chiros who attack my viewpoints aren't used to dealing with both sides, and they aren't aware that I get extensive help from successful and active chiropractors in developing my views, chiros who don't dare say it openly themselves, but they help me formulate my views. They are the views of chiropractors! Yes, it is indeed the most divided profession I know of in any field of endeavor.
Several chiropractic leaders, professors and researchers are members of Chirotalk, but are forced to participate using pseudonyms in order to protect their positions. Reformers aren't tolerated in chiropractic. They are frustrated at the lack of progress. They want to see their profession become more scientific and to see it reform, but there is so much opposition to reform, and so many financial interests at the top tied to keeping the practice builders earning their money from less than ethical methods. But the greatest obstacles to reform are to be found in many of the schools. The education is still basically flawed.
I'm not trying to say that all chiros are pseudoscientists, quacks, or frauds, and I certainly don't "hate" chiros or chiropractic, as some have deceptively suggested. Just because those categories apply to some degree to the profession and to certain chiros, the other chiros don't need to get defensive. Many reasonable chiropractors are ashamed to admit - and they do admit it - that they are members of a profession that doesn't command respect in medical or scientific circles, and that does little if anything to stop quackery practiced by its members, or to stop the anti-medical and anti-scientific attitudes found among many chiros, and taught in many schools. -- Fyslee
My choice of those categories
My choice of those categories was because they are often closely related, and to some degree apply. They don't apply all the time, and they are not always synonymous. But there are people on both sides of the issues that will find it useful to have Alternative Medicine and Chiropractic included in the categories, and especially something like homeopathy, which doesn't have a leg to stand on. It's the biggest fake of them all!
My choice of categories wasn't a "pot shot" or "attack", but just a way to provide more angles on the subject. That's what's great about internet linking, which is what makes Wikipedia different from an ordinary dictionary, although an ordinary dictionary would likely also provide such suggested linking between those articles and topics.
To many medical personnel and scientists, Alternative Medicine certainly belongs in the Quackery category, and that isn't immediately apparent if the category link is removed. Even if you don't agree that it does, the linking of the categories helps to make sure that extremely related and relevant information will be found. -- Fyslee
Difference between Categorization & Cross-linking)
Categorization of an article at Wikipedia is something I'm just beginning to learn. Maybe I'm actually developing my understanding of something that actually isn't a Category issue, but a Cross-linking issue. Thus I may have unwittingly misused the Categories option.
What I'd like to see happening is to cross-link articles and categories that can be related, even if the relation is peripheral. IOW, if an article or category has a mention of a POV or discussion that relates to another category or article, then there should be a cross-link within Wikipedia. This enhances, rather limits, the possibilities for seeking related information at Wikipedia. If there is even a small mention of a related topic, then it should be legitimate to cross-link to that topic. Maybe it's too much to use the Category option for that purpose. -- Fyslee
To limit or enhance Wikipedia's possibilities and usefulness
Maybe there should always be a place reserved near the bottom (of controversial subjects and articles) for cross-linking, where lots of latitude is allowed, IOW for all POV to be represented. As long as another article mentions the subject in question, even if in a single sentence, it should be allowable to make cross-links. This will make Wikipedia function like the human brain, with nearly infinite possibilities. Preventing this possibility would seriously handicap a full exploitation of the possibilities which are available on the internet, and an internet based encyclopedia. I believe Wikipedia should be more, not less.
All of alternative medicine is pseudoscience...that's why it's alternative. Chiropractic is pseudoscience, because it's alternative, and because only chiropractors have ever "seen" a subluxation...but I digress. Fyslee is being fair and presenting a NPOV, Levine2112, chiropractic is quackery and fraud with respect to true science. So Fyslee, just go through the categorization procedures for wikipedia, and Levine2112, go through this page about no personal attacks. Fyslee, if you have any questions/comments about categorization/anything, ask me on my talk page. --CDN9915:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
We are going to have to agree to disagree, I suppose. Chiropractic is a science. Scientific research has show it efficacy in promoting health. More than just chiropractors have seen subluxations. The problem with you is that you - the skeptic - are being narrowminded. You are only paying attention to research that supports your arguments (and fears). You may as well call penicilin a pseudoscience by your definition. We have all seen research that it actually prolongs viral diseases and helps a virus mutate into something more insidious. Therefore, some research shows that penicilin helps and some shows that they hurt. Do you want to put penicilin in pseudoscience? By your definition, it should be. I would be quick to disagree (and first in line for a shot if a massive infection hit this planet). Nothing and I mean nothing has been proven scientifically beyond a shadow of a doubt. In this infinite universe anything is possible. The only thing that is pseudoscience is the misuse or misrepresentation of science to prove a point. In other words, you are pseudoscience. As for NACM, you are talking about a handful of weaklings hiding behind pseudonyms. Yeah, that sounds like science to me...NOT! Open your mind and stop spreading the hate. You are the ones holding back the world from becoming healthier by clouding research with your anger and fear that maybe our bodies are capable of much more that you give it credit. Chiropractors, as with any doctor, are here to help people. What are you doing? Levine211218:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Fyslee, thanks for the Harris Coulter post on my talkpage. As you may have noticed, Wikipedia has a couple of antivaxers, and only recently have some people started catching up with their creations. A sure way to start is the list on User:Ombudsman. While many of these pages look fairly balanced, a slightly closer look reveals an uncritical treatment of people who are actually very fringe. Your background in skepticism-land may have you equipped for some of the more pitched battles that are raging.
To be sure, I'm simply a hospital doctor with no particular axe to grind, but the deafening sound of others grinding theirs made me aware that something is profoundly wrong with the way Wikipedia has until recently been treating vaccine critics.
If Alan Yurko was a cause célèbre for chiropractic it may well be worth it to write up his own article. Surely the articles about Harris Coulter and Archie Kalokerinos would be highly informed by it. Did the case set any legal precedent (e.g. about the courtroom acceptability of the [s]CAM evidence)? JFW | T@lk20:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
A little perspective on pseudoscience and origins. For what it's worth, keep in mind that at the time of the founding of osteopathy, scientific medicine had not quite developed yet. There were no vaccines, no antibiotics. Phlebotomy was still practiced by MD's therapeutically. So it was pseudoscience vs. pseudoscience. -- DocJohnny01:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course this does not in any way apply to certain individuals who started their movements this century. "Cranial" makes my head hurt. And "Cranial-sacral" is a pain in the...--DocJohnny13:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Personal archive pages
I wouldn't mind doing some of those, I can then get that stuff off my main page, if you can tell me how. john08:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
It stands for "Table of Contents". You'll see a code I placed at the top of the archives page. If you use that code, a Table of Contents is automatically produced, based on headings and subheadings. -- Fyslee18:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Greetings
I think we have crossed paths elsewhere. I am quite impressed at your cheerful good nature while you deal with the alt med stuff. I find that a bit more challenging than walking and chewing gum simultaneously, and have mostly abstained from those articles, but JFW is right that there are things we shouldn't be letting stand so I have started looking. Keep up the good work. alteripse16:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
We know each other from the HF list.
What's challenging about editing here is the NPOV. One has to "neutralize" whatever one writes. Do you still use your old email address, or do you have a new one? The last one I have is your AOL address from Sept. 2002. My address is on my User page. Please contact me. -- Fyslee19:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
BTW, you ought to join the two relevant Categories (skeptic and anti-quackery) at the bottom of my User page. -- Fyslee22:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Taboos
Hi Fyslee! This is the girl who wrote you about the taboos in Denamrk compared to America. Do you think you could answer my question that I posted later down the list? I wasn't sure how to contact you!
Wikipedia is not a sitting duck for quacks. In recognition of your efforts the sitting duck award. JFW00:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC).
Wikipedia is not a sitting duck for quacks. In recognition of your efforts the sitting duck award. JFW00:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC).]]
Thanks! I'm used to the feeling....;-) In fact, any reform chiropractor knows the feeling even better than myself, a PT. Chiros are extremely hard on each other if they don't toe the party line.
In general, any dealings with the subject of quackery are immediately rewarded with lots of warmth, and the fires can get hot. There is no better way to get people's flamethrowers lit than to attack their religious or metaphysical opinions and beliefs, and since much of quackery is no more than that, it comes with the turf.
Hey congrats on the Duck! I've taken up your advice and amended my user page to reflect my new Wiki categories. Thanks for the pointer! Maustrauser12:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Cool you're a reformed chiropractor? I'm not sure what the sitting duck award is... but that's interesting that it corresponds to 'quack'... probably related somehow. Anyway, regarding the Quackpotwatch article, thanks for handling that. I think I might have clashed with Stbalbach before (but my memory is bad) and a lot of people pull out the 'reference this' card while not referencing their own stuff and it's tough to deal with, since I remember opinions based on reference but obviously can't memorize the URLs from where I got it. --Tyciol20:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually I'm a Physical Therapist, but I've been a chiroskeptic since I was about 11 years old. Being a PT helps me understand the issues and the anatomy, and being an anti-quackery activist means I understand that aspect even better. If chiropractic (not manipulation) were legitimate, I'd support it, even if it meant losing patients, but its not, so I don't. Simple as that.
I get most of my information directly from reform chiropractors, but also from reading and the internet. I usually ignore the threats, weirdos, and illegal scams so common in chiropractic (there are rotten apples in all professions), and concentrate on the anti-science, anti-medical, unethical, pseudoscientific, and quackery aspects, which means there's plenty to deal with. -- Fyslee21:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
According to this link, I deleted an anti-medical comment, which in other situations could be deemed appropriate and true. Here it was irrelevant, since it was used to divert attention from the subject at hand, which is chiropractic risks. It was used as an invalid comparison of "apples to oranges", which is a logical fallacy, a false analogy, and a cheap diversionary tactic. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of references to this logical fallacy. Here is just one link.
The deleted words are very much POV. Casting aspersions on other professions in this context is not just POV, it is improper and undignified. It's a real "Duffy", and that's getting pretty low in the "chiros hate MDs" scale of things.
When I deleted it, my short justification was worded: "deleted improper comparison".
According to this link you have restored my deletion.
When doing so you used this wording: "Safety concerns - - revert edit... let's discuss".
Fair enough. Let's discuss it right here. If you can show me that the words I deleted were not a logical fallacy and misplaced in this situation, then I'll leave them there. No problemo. Otherwise they will get deleted again by myself or others.
Please explain. The ball is in your court.....;-)
PS: For my views on the subject of high cervical manipulation risks, you can read this, and do it thoroughly, including the references. The risks are small in number (yet catastophic in consequences], unnecessary, and inexcusable.
I may have to resort to your tactics where you remove links just because they are deemed "hate sites" by you. Click here for an example of an edit of Fyslee. By his rationale, I should be able to delete all links to ChiroBase, QuackWatch, etc. on the Chiropractic page because those are chiropractic "hate sites".
I have gotten tired of discussing with him, since he's a rather primitive type, but there are pleny more like him in chiroland. I wish he'd try discussing these issues with some other chiros. I know several that would pin him to the wall for sloppy reasoning and poor documentation. The problem is that a fool can ask a 1,000 questions that the wisest man can never answer, and he's doing that kind of thing. It's a big time waster.
If he were to join the Healthfraud Discussion List and Chirotalk, he could discuss with other chiros. Stephen Perle, DC, MS, professor at University of Bridgeport College of Chiropractic, would demolish him. Levine is an amateur at this, and is apparently not used to seeng the other side of the issues. He acts as if he's never heard of them before. If he had, he wouldn't try the stupid tricks he's up to. To attempt to correct his thinking amounts to trying to build the Golden Gate Bridge all over again. -- Fyslee19:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Now he's comparing apples to oranges, as if two different studies on two totally different subjects, can be contrasted ("...outdated, disproven 27 year old study" and "Yet, according to...") in some way. Weird! This guy doesn't get it at all. The number of confounders in that study must be astronomical. -- Fyslee19:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
You're quite right. Being a "chiropractic advocate" and having "experience with over a dozen chiropractors" isn't proof that he's a chiro himself. He may well be a chiropractic patient. When reading his anatomical concepts of nerves controlling everything, he could be a chiro, or a well indoctrinated patient. I've met chiros who actually believed such primitive and simplistic views of anatomy and physiology. I'm both a PA and a PT, and when I was in PA school we had a chiro come and tell us about chiropractic. I was already skeptical back then, but this guy believed in anatomy as it was taught in 1895. I mean the Meric system, nerve charts, subluxations, Innate Intelligence, Applied Kinesiology, and all. It was weird to think that this guy had the legal right to call himself a doctor, and yet have such limited and off-beat views of anatomy. Chiros must have their own anatomy books, or its the leftovers of the early (lingering into the last half of the 20th century) denials of real anatomy. BJ Palmer had the audacity to even cross out pages in real medical anatomy books and tell his students that it was wrong, therefore they didn't need to read it. (It simply didn't fit in with chiropractic philosophy!) Since it's chiros taught with that legacy, there must be large gaps in their knowledge, and they are the ones who teach in chiro schools. Those chiros then go out and indoctrinate patients. What a mess. -- Fyslee18:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
You know, I'm reading the insults about me and they don't really bother me that much. It just very telling of each or your characters. There is no arbitration coming my way because I've done nothing but keep this article fair as evidenced by all of my additions to the article and discussion pages. On a user page that was adding pro-chiropactic statements to the article, user Fyslee wrote:
Take it easy on the chiropractic article. It must not be used as a soapbox to sell chiropractic.[8]
I agree completely. But Fyslee you must therefore agree that the opposite holds true. The chiropractic article must not be used as a soapbox to sell anti-chiropractic. The fact is, you have been using the article to do just that. By doing this, you force pro-chiropractic Wikipedians to do 1 of 2 things. 1)Delete your statements for violation of NPOV. Or 2) add pro-chiropractic support to the article to counter the anti-chiropractic sentiments.
To lambast me for not seeing both sides of the issue is highly hypocritical. I highly doubt you consider the pro-chiropractic side as being aything other that quackery. Therefore, I think call me thin-skinned really reflects on you more than I.
I get it. You think chiropractic is crazy. You think it constitutes fraud. Well, I disagree. We can go back and forth with you adding anti-chiropractic statements and me countering with pro-chiropractic statements OR we can agree to make this article exactly hat it is supposed to be: neither a pro and anti soapbox. Just a factual article about what chiropractic is and what chiropractors do. This is the umpteenth time that I have offered this, but yet I get no response from you. Here I have offer you the exact reasoning behind my actions with this article. You asked for this response, yet you didn't respond.
I still want to know why you feel it neccessary to spend so much of your time to bash chiropractic and chiropratic supporters. I'd also like to know what you think constitutes my stupid tricks, what I do that you think is annoying, and what you consider spamming.
Oh and speaking of spamming, can we let Sysop know about all of the links that you have been placing on this article and other articles to your anti-chiropractic sites. It seems to me that you are doing this to boost your websites' Google PageRank - a practice that is highly frowned upon here at Wikipedia. And before you start denying it, I would like to point you all to a section of Fyslee's anti-chiropractic chatboard entitled "Upping Google's Chirotalk rating" where Fyslee clearly answers the question of boosting site PageRank:
Reciprocal links......
Reciprocal links......
Reciprocal links......
Reciprocal links......
Get the picture?
Hits aren't enough. Site popularity means an awful lot.
So unless you have anymore insults and empty threats for me, you know where you'll find me.
We (as non-admins) have to go into the history, click a previous unvandalised version, click "edit" at the top of that version, then save it. Admins have a "revert" button to press. --CDN9922:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Ack! That's weird, I deleted the space on top but I definately did NOT add one below it... yet there it is. Must be some weird automatic wiki coding thing... anyway, no, it probably doesn't, I'm just a nitpicker about space and stuff. Generally, Wiki auto-spaces, so unless it has a function like making the editing source page more legible I usually delete them, because a line break is data too, and cutting out data makes wiki run faster in small small small ways. Btw, I won't be embarassed/offended if you make comments on the page itself because no one really talks a lot on talk pages anyway and when we do personal messages then copying is done back and forth whereas on the main page we get notified of a change anyway since we watch the article... so how are you? Tyciol06:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
You just dropped in a passage that was from a manuscript published by oxford university press. You need to paraphrase it. It currently is a copyright violation. Steve Kd4ttc23:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
On the talk page of pseudoscience, you write Majority scientific viewpoint is NPOV, according to Wikipedia policy. Can you point me to the article that states that? Thank you. Bubba73(talk), 23:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Wow, the above is a terrifying claim that does not belong anywhere in the Wiki, much less elsewhere, although that sort of thinking does seem to exist among the many disinformative mantras proffered for the purpose of stifling other povs. Another example is the attempt to stick the word controversial in the intro of the chiropractic article. Such attempts infer that the above hypothesis (that majority scientific viewpoints are npov) represents an acceptable good faith assumption. Regardless of such an assumption of good faith, mainstream scientific opinion is still inherently povish, and certainly cannot be assumed to be npov. While there are scientific controversies surrounding chiropractics, the use of the term controversial in the intro has huge political implications, starting with the problem of mainstream medicine's attempts to monopolize the medical market. In any case, chiropractic practitioners certainly have a better scientific basis for their treatment methods than do psychiatrists, yet there is presently no mention of the enormous controversies surrounding the skyrocketing use of psychotropics in the psychiatry article introduction, despite the inherently controversial and problematic matter of drug industry political influence upon that profession. It would be appreciated if you would concentrate on addressing the matter of chiropractic controversies in the body of the article, rather than promoting the impression that the profession is entirely suspect. Ombudsman17:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Category:Alternative medicine
Before adding controversial categories, such as Pseudoscience, to articles, such as Category:Alternative medicine, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category. The addition of a category to an article is considered a claim that the subject of the article is what the name of the category would suggest, and the article needs to contain information that backs your claim up, otherwise it will most likely be removed by another user. --Dforest11:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Fyslee. Please take care to not violate Wikipedia policies or be rude when discussing articles. In reference to your comments here:
"I suspect that this might be a linguistic problem...then it could explain the slavish sticking to an overly literal interpretation that also happens to backup this editor's POV (an anti-Barrett agenda)" violates WP:AGFWP:CIVIL and WP:NPA
"Focusing on the words themselves is like focusing on the legs of a table, and ignoring what's on the table itself." violates WP:CIVILWP:AGF
"Barrett could have chosen any number of other examples of detrimental or worthless human behavior, and maybe I should have a talk with him to get this changed, since persons with tendencies to interpret him "malignantly" violates WP:BIOWP:NORWP:NPOV
"persons with tendencies to interpret him "malignantly" (see above) are abundant" violates WP:AGFWP:NPA
"in an effort to detract from and avoid dealing with his messages." violates WP:AGF
"The criticism section here is being used in just that way, which is intellectually dishonest." violates WP:NPAWP:AGF
"It's hard for the rest of us to show Metta good faith" WP:AGF
I found your comments highly inflammatory. I consider my ability to reflect upon a POV edit I made in my past actually strengthens my ability to be neutral, and I know many editors who admire the ability to reflect constructively on ones work like this. But for you to cross post my comment into a completely unrelated talk page and then try to use it as an ad hominem attack on me is not within the bounds of good faith or civility. To start talking about "the rest of us" is divisive and in bad faith. You're talking about a three person discussion, not the world versus Metta Bubble. I am preparing a Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct regarding your association with this article but I anticipate that instead of posting the conduct report we can work out our difficulties while staying within the bounds of wikipedia policy. I shall work with you on this if you can assume good faith leave your connections with the Stephen Barrett outside of wikipedia, and then stick to following wikipedia policy on civility and personal attack standards. Your personal friendship with this man is actually not to your benefit when writing his article because it strains and probably violates the WP:BIO policy. I hope you take this as an olive branch and a very humble request for us to lift the standard of our discussion. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubblepuff05:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I am surprised that you interpret my remarks so personally, in light of my commending you for your earlier recognition of your own POV edits, which I found to be admirable, and commended you for it. If I made POV edits, I would expect you to point them out, and that we could then discuss them. Such things don't always happen deliberately.
My main concern is that accusations be accurate, and that critics refrain from ad hominem attacks on Barrett (or anyone else they don't like). The repeated explanations that you were misinterpreting his explanations on the question of "balance" didn't seem to be making any effect on your understanding, and I was simply pointing out that fact, and attempting to find a possible explanation, which would actually take you "off the hook." At least the current version is somewhat better.
I am perfectly willing to avoid attacking you, but commenting on the nature of edits can't be avoided, but should instead be discussed. That's what I would expect, and which is what I hope we can do. There is no need to bring others into this. -- Fyslee12:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
