This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
Archive 9
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is an archive of past discussions with 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.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Not Intending to Harass You
I'm not trying to harass you, and I apologize if it seems that I am. I'll openly admit to being thoroughly confused when it comes to Wikipedia policies, which I attribute to both my own poor reading skills and Wikipedia's presentation of these policies. Since you weren't banned from editing Quackwatch and alt.med articles, then my apologies for thinking that you were -- I did not read as carefully as I should have.
The intro to that decision states that "Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed". There is no explanation of how an item can receive majority vote and not pass. Majority vote is a necessary, but not sufficient requirement? Anyway, since I saw a majority vote on that decision, I thought it passed. When do measures pass? Is it just a qualitative assessment? Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy has the word majority several times -- and nowhere is it clear that majority is not the criterion. What do you mean by scare formatting, and how is this a personal attack? Also, how am I making WP unpleasant for you? I've hardly encountered you. I'm not in the least bit following you around; your Talk page is not on my watchlist, and I have not looked at your recent contributions list that I remember. I'm sorry if I hurt you in trying to balance the Quackwatch page, but there was nothing personal there. Similarly, I'm sorry if I offended you in taking the Quackwatch sources from the Linus Pauling page, but there was nothing personal. My comment that you may not have liked the balance of the Dunitz source since it stated that "vitamin C has become a respectable topic" was somewhat snide, and I apologize for that as well. But otherwise I don't recall directly even coming into contact with you. Like I said, I think Quackwatch can be appropriate in extreme pseudoscience, but if better sources can be found, they should always be used. Quackwatch is largely a self-published website by a retired psychiatrist.
If I may be blunt and not personally offend you: it is important to separate a website from yourself. Have you heard of the endowment effect? People can start reading a website (or a book), became friends with its author -- and suddenly they think that issues with that website reflect on themselves. A friend of mine bought Natural Cures by Kevin Trudeau. I told her that it was a scam, and she became very offended. (I don't think natural cures in general are a scam, but I do think that the book -- which does not cite sources and is very vague -- is a scam.) That was not a personal attack, but she took it as such. Perhaps that is not the case with you -- I don't mean to say that it is -- but I seriously haven't been trying to harass you. I'm quite surprised that you feel so strongly that I have been. If you could point out some instances where you think I did, I would appreciate it. And I do have more respect for you than many other editors, based on my (very) limited experience. I can respect that you don't get heavily involved and edit war on alt. med. topics, for example, and I appreciated you backing me up on the stroke article. ImpIn | (t - c) 02:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Apology accepted. Mistakes are easy to make and the detour into attacking me, instead of discussing the matter at hand, wasn't even started by you, but by MP. Let's move forward. My sensitivity has to do with some of the history here at Wikipedia, where I have been a favorite whipping boy of the alt med crowd. I can edit and collaborate with editors who hold opposing POV, and have done so with good success, but many go directly for the throat and attack me personally, and that's just not fair. If what you had said (about the ArbCom decision) had been true, I wouldn't have reacted so strongly, but I'm sensitized because it has happened many times before, so the strength of my reaction may have been because of that, and you got more than you deserved. Sorry about that.
The rules for when an ArbCom proposal "passes" are somewhat obscure, but a majority of the total number of available ArbCom members who can vote if they choose must vote, so there were some things behind the scenes that weren't apparent to you: "An Injunction is considered to have passed when four or more Arbitrators have voted in favour of it, where a vote in opposition negates a vote in support." Even experienced editors don't always understand that, so don't feel too bad. Wikipedia policies are a jungle and are often subject to on-the-spot interpretation, depending on the situation. Don't expect total fairness here. If you build up a reputation as a wise editor, that reputation will get you through many a difficulty, win you friends, and your reputation is your most valuable commodity here. Perfection isn't necessary, but a positive learning curve is invaluable. We're all learning here, so I bid you welcome! -- Fyslee / talk02:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
ImpIn, you can rest assured that if you make a reasoned argument and back it with reliable sources, Fyslee will respect your right to include it. I would write an altmed article with Fyslee any day. Unlike others, Fyslee understands the necessity to get the story right (from all sides). -- Dēmatt(chat)03:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Dematt, and the same to you. "Singing to the choir" may be relaxing, but it doesn't produce good articles. It's a big plus when editors from different backgrounds and holding various and even opposing POV can collaborate and produce much better articles. The more I understand NPOV, and I am still learning, the more wisdom I see in it as a guiding principle for writing an encyclopedia. -- Fyslee / talk05:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Keating
Did I tell you that I got an email from Keating just before he died (a couple of months) and he was so glad to see that we had used his work. I think we may have made him feel vindicated for all his hard work. -- Dēmatt(chat)15:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't recall that, but you may have. He was a truly diligent historian who did an important job for the profession. I exchanged emails with him several times. He was always a gentleman, spoke his mind, shared good insights, help me find information, and he didn't always agree with me, which is probably the way it should be ;-) Nobody understood the profession as well as he did, and he certainly deserves an article here. How about starting it? Joseph C. Keating, Jr. You have already proven yourself to be quite a researcher and historian. There should be plenty of RS to make a short biography to start with, that can then be expanded by others who know more details and who know other sources. Of course you could just start with a long one! Just his bibliography would be impressive, and it could all be linked! There would be no BLP concerns. I don't know of any scandals or problems he had. He was highly respected by friends and foes. His career was illustrious and he influenced many people very positively. This guy was a chiropractic giant. -- Fyslee / talk01:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
That does seem like a fitting memorial for him. I will take you up on that! If I can just find the time, arrrrrggg. The days are just too short :-) -- Dēmatt(chat)03:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your intervention. I just realised I might be being WP:BAITed, but it honestly didn't occur to me until just. Hopefully I wasn't, but I always appreciate advice and discussion with others. I might give the homeopathy talk page a rest for a while :-) Things do seem a lot better there now than in the recent past though. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Fyslee, would you mind checking on the edit? [1] I don't see a citation to clarify the changes being made by the anon IP's here to make a change if necessary. Thanks, if you are too busy, don't worry, I assume someone will correct if needed, I just know that you know these kinds of area well and thought you could do the proper thing for the article. Again thanks for your attentions, --CrohnieGalTalk13:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Noticed you filling in my reference -- doing that by hand?
Hi, I noticed you fixing up after me. I don't want to put you through a bunch of stress -- fixing lazy people references all the time might make you want to kill the lazy people. Have you seen this? The reason I didn't use it is because I honestly find citation templates hellishly difficult to read through. That's why I have this Bugzilla:12796 and this discussion at the top of my userpage. If you want to substitute my lazy references for the cite templates, I'm not gonna stop you. Hopefully at some point we will be able to substitute them for just the names and keep the mess out of the articles' editing space. II03:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I actually do it by hand, the old fashioned way. When I encounter one that's done with a template, I find it hard to fix and thus it stays as is, with incomplete information. -- Fyslee / talk06:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Fyslee, did you look at the link? This tool allows you to search Google Scholar, wikify articles that you came across, and automatically fill in most of the template fields (in many cases). I don't use it because I find that templates clutter up the page currently. Doing it by hand...well, I do that too sometimes... less clutter. II03:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
How absurd and cowardly, anonymous IP. You have failed to AGF, a fundamental policy here. You could have asked, or at least have read my reply and at the least quoted me correctly. The other comments on the page will make it clear what the situation was. Enric Naval understood perfectly because he AGF. Oh what a tangle web we weave when we fail to AGF. -- Fyslee / talk22:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
My advice about consequences in real life are addressed here:
You do know that BLP only applies to biographical information concerning living people and not users, right?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
That's news to me. It must be another change to that policy. It used to apply to any negative "poorly sourced" information about any living person on earth, including users here. It should be immediately removed by any user. Such information must be very well-sourced. At least that's the way it used to be. A guick look hasn't changed my mind. If you are thinking of something special, or some special interpretation, I can always learn, and I'll thank you for it! -- Fyslee / talk23:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that was the original intent, but its use in practice has been enlarged to include just about anyone, IOW a "broad" application. We have ethical and legal liabilities here, and we want to set a high standard of how we deal with information that can negatively affect others. Our rules governing how we deal with other editors bears out that we should use special care to not make it uncomfortable for others to edit here. That's why the V & RS policies are even more strictly applied in BLP situations than in other ones. That's my understanding of it. It's been an issue in ArbComs and other situations where it has been applied more broadly than just in "biographical" situations. I do know that Jimbo has strong feelings about how we treat each other. If I'm wrong in my interpretation of this policy, I'd sure like to know. If it doesn't apply to other users, then we need a version that explicitly does. -- Fyslee / talk02:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
And I am fairly sure that BLP is not something one applies to negative statements made by editors concerning other editors. BLP is a policy meant to prevent negative statements that are made about living persons that could harm their reputations, as Wikipedia has clout in the real world. This covers just libelous material made towards the subjects of biographies, which you are not. You cannot claim "remove BLP violation" when someone says something about you that you do not like. That is why the policy is called "Biographies of Living Persons." The "broad" application does not cover everyone meaning every person alive. It covers every biography and the subjects of those biographies in every project space.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I should have cited NPA. BLP has been widely used to remove poorly sourced negative (not just libelous) information about living persons who are not subjects of biographies here. Wikipedians aren't allowed to write poorly sourced negative information about anyone, anywhere (even private user space) at Wikipedia. I'm not talking about insults or badmouthing (which is covered by NPA), but factually incorrect negative information that is poorly sourced. Maybe the admins and ArbCom members who have done that are poorly informed, but that's what I've seen done and what I have based my interpretatons upon. -- Fyslee / talk07:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Whatever it is. You are not protected under WP:BLP. No editor is unless they also happen to be the subject of a biography on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you're right here, Ryulong; BLP applies to information about living persons anywhere in Wikipedia. Obviously it is subject to reasonable provisions. Fyslee, while BLP does apply in talk and project space, I'm not sure that it justifies your removing your username from an ANI discussion. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I only removed it from the header as I had seen someone cite a MOS guideline (or something like that) that headers should not include attacks by naming other editors. That's what I felt was happening and no one else had their name appearing in the TOC, TTBOMK. I won't do it again. If it had been the 3RR noticeboard, where that is standard practice, it would have been another matter, but this was a bogus and malicious attack by an IP misusing a zombie node. -- Fyslee / talk07:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you're right about the original intent, but its application has changed in practice, as indicated by Morven. It seems to have merged it's V & RS parts with the intent of our NPA policies, which provides users (and anyone else mentioned at Wikipedia) proper protection from poorly sourced attacks. -- Fyslee / talk07:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the guideline to which you refer is Wikipedia:TALK#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages. It deals specifically with talk page behavior, but the rationales would seem to apply to an AN/I thread except perhaps as necessary to define an incident (I have not checked whichever thread spawned this discussion). In any case, WP:NPA and WP:AGF are in full force everywhere. - Eldereft (cont.) 10:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Eldereft. That sounds like the one I heard mentioned. I don't recall actually reading it myself, but the first part (bold) sounds right. The rest doesn't address attacks:
"Never address other users in a heading: A heading should invite all editors to respond to the subject addressed."
Combining that with NPA and AGF, mentioning a user by name in a heading which attacks them is especially dubious. Whatever the case was, I certainly didn't intend to do anything wrong. I'm not a vandal who deletes information indiscriminately or a disrupter. My intentions were good and I was acting in good faith, even if possibly misguided, and I'm sorry what I did irritated anyone. I should have just said NPA and AGF in my edit summary, instead of BLP. The circumstances were especially egregious and I didn't want my name figuring so prominently in the TOC, but I didn't tamper with the actual message at all, even though it made pretty serious allegations and used words like "attacked", "threat", "history of violent assault", etc.. While they were used as an example, it still could leave the wrong impression in people's minds about me, and I'd still appreciate my name (just it) being expunged from that entry. I have never threatened (except normal warnings we do all the time here) anyone at Wikipedia or in real life. I certainly know about LEGAL, too. I think some kid attacked me in fifth grade, and that's the last time I have ever been in what might be called a fight. I'm not a violent person in real life. Fortunately the IP was blocked, but the same person was likely using another IP to attack me and Philknight on Dr. Polich's talk page, even calling for Phil's blocking and/or banning! That IP should be investigated and possibly blocked. -- Fyslee / talk15:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
What? Someone with 2,928 pages watchlisted is not a disruptive vandal? How odd! :) And yes, I lurk on a number of threads that do not really concern me. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Seconded, although I think the remarks from Drpolich were understandable. The comments from some others seem to have been intentionally inflammatory. Claims of baiting indeed... --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't consider her remarks so bad, since they were remarks based on ignorance of our policies here. The others were decidedly malicious. What is unfortunate is that a user like User:Colonel Warden made such remarks and even backed here up in her ignorant (of policy) demands. That shows he has a very poor understanding of policy as well. -- Fyslee / talk03:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
It is indeed easy to misunderstand. It is a deep subject, and the more I work here, the more I see it's wisdom. Wikipedia would just be another encyclopedia without it. -- Fyslee / talk04:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I had the same problem with Dana. In spanish all names ending with "a" are femenine, so it confused the heck out of me. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh boy! My remark was actually not about Drpolich, but about god, and was a bit blasphemous, skeptic that I am. But yes, Drpolich is a she. Check out her website and you'll be unamazed at how the altie mind works. Not. -- Fyslee / talk05:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Even better, "Dana" can be a last name too. We had one of each species at a conference the other year, though sadly they were not all even speaking in the same room. And one of them spends far too much time in the classified basement. - Eldereft (cont.) 07:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I should drop by and take a look. Thanks. BTW, thanks for your wise way of dealing with the controversy at alt med. You have chosen to do what should have been done all along. It's been tried before and POV warriors have sabotaged the attempts, but maybe this time it will succeed. Good luck. -- Fyslee / talk04:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Alexander Technique
Hy Fyslee, I've been trying to clean up Alexander Technique and was wondering if you could look it over. It is not really in my area of expertise, but I've tried to make it a bit easier to read. The research section looks ok. Thanks --Vannin (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. I shouldn't have saved that, as I didn't have time to finish. I was pointing out some portions of WP:AGF that appear to be commonly ignored by those who are trying to Wikilawyer with it. I was also going to add Wikipedia:Agf#Accusing_others_of_bad_faith as another detail of AGF that's ignored. --Ronz (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Username
It is short for DigitalCanuck, which I have used elsewhere when Digital is not available. There is someone else here that has the user name Digital refer straight to his account (Digitalme) for some reason, so I couldn't use it. DigitalC (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, and that makes sense, because as a DC you are an expert at using your digits in hands-on treatment. Of course digital can have other connotations, but that's the one I thought might apply. Also the abbreviation DC also parallels DC. Thanks for the explanation. Some user names around here have interesting backgrounds. -- Fyslee / talk14:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
You need to read WP:TALK and WP:NPA. Making fun of another user's spelling isn't very nice and violates our policies here. Many users don't have English as their mother tongue and should be cut alot of slack when it comes to spelling, and typos do happen the best of editors. Interpolating your comments in another editor's comments the way you did isn't very nice either. Now if you don't understand this, then take it up with the two administrators who also reverted your edits. -- Fyslee / talk14:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Quackwatch
Fyslee, as a reminder, the Quackwatch article is currently subject to Conditions for editing, such as 0RR (no reverts), and a requirement for civility. When you reverted this edit with an edit summary of "nonsense", that was a violation of the restrictions.[3] Better would have been to edit the sentence to address any concern, and then you could have removed the tag. Or, you could have posted at the talkpage and questioned the wisdom of the tag. But just reverting the tag within minutes was not a good idea. Please, try to be more aware of the article restrictions in the future? I realize that they may seem a bit strict, but they are helping to stabilize an article that has been in a state of chronic conflict, so the longterm goal is a good one. :) Thanks, --Elonka15:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
BTW, now I have actually checked out your link to the new "Conditions for editing," and find them interesting. I didn't know they existed. That's what I get for having "2,973 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." -- Fyslee / talk04:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Acupuncture anesthesia
Welcome here Ludwigs2. Here we can continue without infringing on the rights of others and without violating TALK. You wrote:
P.s. Fyslee - I just have to comment that while there may be"no known anatomical or histological basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians", acupuncture is one of alternative medicines that actually gets prominent use in major medicine (it's used as replacement for local anesthetics, for instance...). that's one of the dangers with dealing with fringe topics - some of them in fact work. ;-) --Ludwigs223:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
and I replied:
I don't agree, since fraud by the Chinese was involved in the original claim about acupuncture anesthesia. To avoid violating TALK, let's continue this on my talk page. See you there shortly.
Just to make it somewhat clear where I stand on acupuncture, I believe it does have potential usefulness as a treatment method, since it actually does involve affecting the body. The body is going to "notice" that something has been stuck into it. All kinds of physical and psychological effects can be theorized as resultants of that "encounter". In fact many have been claimed, but most with no good scientific evidence to support them. That's where I'm at. The claims are too grand (cure of diseases) for me to just accept them. I need much stronger evidence than exists at present. So far results are not reproducible or generally applicable to all people, and it makes no difference where one places the needles. We don't have a good explanation for how it might work, except some production of endorphins, but in the end it's ultimately a question of IF it works that counts. If the proof is good enough, its use will be accepted as mainstream medicine and controversy will cease. That hasn't happened yet.
The original reports about the Chinese using acupuncture for anesthesia have been debunked as fraud on the part of the Chinese, with the American visitors being fooled by them. That fulfilled the aims of Mao Zedong by giving good publicity to the supposedly miraculous effects of Traditional Chinese medicine, and it started lots of Western claims about the use of acupuncture for anesthesia, but very little proof has been produced for the practice, and it's far from universal in its effects. The few times it seems to work (very little documentation even for that) can easily be explained by various psychological and pain coping mechanisms, especially considering we still lack an adequate and reproducible theory for why it would work "as claimed". I've even had a root canal without anesthesia of ANY kind! I'm still open to possible beneficial effects, but I'm not very optimistic considering the lack of progress after years of research. But who knows what the future holds? More on the subject, with refs. -- Fyslee / talk03:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Edzard Ernst is always interesting. I wouldn't say a "more qualified opinion" in this case, since he doesn't even mention it, but he has a very qualified opinion on many alternative medicine areas. He is an expert practitioner of various altmed methods, and came to his job with the hope that altmed would be proven more and more using the scientific method. He was quite disappointed and has become a pariah to the altmed field because he, an altmed practitioner AND scientist, has now reexamined much of it and has used science to debunk and expose many altmed practices. The link you provided reveals a winnowing process between the claims and the evidence. That's good. We need good evidence, and at least here there is some evidence, even if it may be strong, weak, or whatever it is. More research is called for, and Ernst will no doubt be "where it's at." -- Fyslee / talk05:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we're using two different versions of qualified. I think Ernst is more qualified to evaluate the evidence; he's been doing lots of these studies, they're being published in the Cochrane database, and he just published a couple large books on the subject, one by Oxford. That indicates to me that he is highly qualified; it is not easy to publish all these studies, and it means he's performed well under close scientific scrutiny. Barrett has not published much outside of his website except for [[[polemical]] books like The Vitamin Pushers – from a scholarly perspective a book like that would be a bit of an embarrassment. (I haven't read it, but I'm inclined to believe Colgan, who says the book hardly discusses vitamins at all. There is a problem with vitamin supplements in the US, but polemics rather than careful analysis aren't going help it.) He is an enthusiastic amateur who is heavily invested in painting AltMed as "all quackery", in spite of evidence to the contrary. That makes him essentially the polar opposite of people who promote homeopathy – they're both dogmatic. It's hard to believe people who can't take a nuanced approach on something as large as AltMed. There's psychological research which shows that people will often stick with false conclusions to justify their past actions and go through an escalation of commitment.. And his response to more nuanced mainstream perspectives, reflected in the Institute of Medicine's publication, is to make a sort of conspiracy claim. Maybe there is a conspiracy, but it is highly ironic for him to make such a claim. II | (t - c) 06:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't making any special distinction as to type of qualifications, just noting that Ernst wasn't talking about acupuncture anesthesia or discussing the fraud involved, as mentioned above. Barrett and Ernst are experts in their own ways, which are indeed different, but they are basically in agreement in many ways. I think Colgan's criticism is a straw man, since the book isn't supposed to be about vitamins, but about their salesmen. Interestingly enough Barrett admits to taking a multivitamin a day, in spite of his very healthy lifestyle. I think he just wants to expose all the overhyped promotion. That's also very basic to his criticisms of various modalities. It's the overselling and making of claims that aren't documented, or have been debunked by research that has shown them to be without merit, rather than the modality itself. Any modality that makes mild and reasonable claims won't get criticized. As to any conspiracy claim, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Please enlighten me. -- Fyslee / talk14:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Fyslee - I don't think I disagree with you all that much (though it was a good idea to move this to talk space, thanks). my main objection to the way AltMeds like acupuncture are handled is that editors tend to assume (or promote) 'modern' (western/scientific/analytic/reductionistic/...) medicine as a 'true' perspective, rather than a particular medical POV. Scientific medicine is extremely effective, but scientific medicine is not the final measure of all health issues. sure, some altmed theorists get over-grandiose about their abilities, but so do some conventional doctors. sure, many altmed practices are under-researched, but then so are many conventional practices. when editors start by making an erroneous category distinction (that there's something called 'modern medicine' that is clear and defined), and then attach labels like 'good' and 'correct' to that erroneous category, all you can end up with is prejudicial statements that have no real foundation. see what I mean? --Ludwigs221:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's good we moved it here, especially since we are way off-topic from our original subject! I hate polemical discussions that get all hot. I'd rather just sit down and find out where people are at, and if we disagree, why not do it agreeably?! That I can respect. Keep on doing your best here. This is an interesting place and a learning experience. -- Fyslee / talk00:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I Don't mean to butt in, but I just thought that I would note that acupuncture - using meridian therapy - is not used all that often "in major medicine". Instead, what is used, and is researched, is dry needling. Just as SMT can be performed by MDs, so can dry needling. - DigitalC (talk) 03:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
You are more than welcome here! I think you are probably right. There are of course some MDs who do use traditional acupuncture, but they are "alternative" MDs who are out of "sync" with their mainstream colleagues. Those other MDs who use dry needling give little credence to meridians and acupuncture points. Personally I think we can safely totally and without danger discard those ideas as metaphysical relics of a time when anatomical knowledge was pretty limited, while we should be open to any potential usefulness for dry needling. That's where the research will prove interesting. There is an interesting quote that deals with an interesting parallel situation in chiropractic, using acupuncture as an example:
"Crelin showed that one of the bedrock principles of chiropractic - the hypothesis that the vertebral pinching of spinal nerves impairs nerve functioning - is almost certainly invalid. Chiro-practic without this principle is analogous to meridianless acu-puncture." - Craig F. Nelson, DC
Acupuncture without the philosophy is dry needling. Manipulation without the philosophy isn't adjustment. Chiropractic without subluxations isn't "real" chiropractic. Call it something else. IMHO....;-) -- Fyslee / talk05:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to respond to your edit summary. "Please reserve such tags for highly controversial wordings, not for "the sky is blue" & "humans usually have two legs" types of obvious facts."
I wasn't tagging the statements as controversial. As I said in my edit summary, I noticed the citation given does not exist. Hence the "citation needed" tags.
Also, you seem to feel those statement as obvious as "the sky is blue." I don't think that applies in this case. The statements are questionable at best. You'd be hard pressed to find a source for them. Again, in US, DO and MD are legal equivalents. Bryan HoppingT 23:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Bryan. ??? Those statements have been there for some time and I had always believed it was you who had written it! I guess I should have checked the edit history. Who did write it? My edit summary wasn't concerned with the existing citation's status (I don't know if it applies at all to the words at the end of the sentence), but that I didn't see any reason for citations for the two points where the tags were located. Do you really think anyone would really know so little about medical history as to challenge those two obvious statements? I guess if they do, they can challenge them. BTW, I'm not questioning the current legal status of the DO degree, or the fact that it is legally - and more and more so generally - considered equal to the MD degree. It just hasn't gotten there yet. When that finally happens in reality, then there will finally be no more justification for keeping the DO degree at all. It's very existence is living proof that there is a difference, and history shows that difference has been huge, but now is getting smaller. -- Fyslee / talk00:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Fyslee. I did write some of this paragraph, and overall I don't have a problem with it. It's really just these two sentences. "It gives the option to practice in any of the medical specialties, and, unlike the DO (Doctorate of Osteopathic Medicine), the MD is universally recognized as a medical degree. When practicing overseas, the MD is far easier to negotiate with than is the DO.' " The first clause is misleading, as DOs certainly practice in all specialties. As far as the universal recognition part, I don't mind the idea, but its the weasel words that I have trouble with, i.e. "far" easier and "universally recognized". These are overly subjective, sweeping statements. I think this all should be discussed, but it needs to be sourced, and toned down a notch. Bryan HoppingT 04:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay. That makes sense. Here's the original:
MD qualification training is by far the most widely available and recognized type of medical training. It gives the option to practice in any of the medical specialties, and, unlike the DO (Doctorate of Osteopathic Medicine), the MD is universally recognized as a medical degree. When practicing overseas, the MD is far easier to negotiate with than is the DO.
Here's an attempt to improve it:
MD qualification training is the most widely available and recognized type of medical training. Like the DO, it gives the option to practice in any of the medical specialties, but unlike the DO, the MD is internationally recognized as a medical degree. Thus, when practicing overseas, the MD is easier to negotiate with than is the DO, where the DO degree isn't always understood or recognized.
Yes! This is much better. I think saying that MD is "more widely available & recognized" would be better than "most widely available." I know other countries use degrees other than MD (MBBS, etc). Perhaps we could also refer people to the section of Osteopathic Medicine in the US that discusses Int'l practice rights of US-trained DOs? Since it already exists and is well-sourced.
Sounds good to me. Before doing this, I think we should seek consensus by copying this to the article's talk page and getting more input. I'll do it now. -- Fyslee / talk03:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'd just like to point out that the article talk page might be a better place for this discussion, as then we can all get involved - I only found this by accident. Looks like a good discussion about improving the article, and that's good, so put it where we can all see :) I hope I'm not speaking out of turn here, thanks. Verbalchat21:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Punctuation around references
Greetings. One of the things Polbot does in her 8th approved task is to fix punctuation around references. For instance, in this change (after "Darmstadt"), the period was after the reference. Polbot fixed it so that the period goes in front of the reference. All the best, – Quadell(talk)13:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Cool! That's exactly what I was looking for. It looks like it did miss one other type of common mistake, the space between the last word and the beginning of the following ref: "(Joanneum National Museum) <ref>" Keep up the good work. -- Fyslee / talk14:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Many CAM methods are criticized by the activist non-profit organization Quackwatch.[1] Among many other sources that recommend its use as a reliable source for information about CAM,[2] the American Cancer Society lists Quackwatch as one of ten reputable sources of information about Alternative and Complementary Therapies in their book "Cancer Medicine",[3] and lists it as one of four sources for information about Alternative & Complementary Therapies in an article about on-line cancer information and support.[4] It also uses Quackwatch as a reference in a long series of articles on many forms of alternative medicine.[5]
I would challenge anyone to find a private non-profit organization whose website is so widely recognized, recommended, and used by universities, libraries, consumer protection agencies, mainstream medical, and governmental sources as a reliable source of information regarding alternative medicine, quackery, and health fraud. Quackwatch is the single largest database on those subjects. The Skeptic's Dictionary is an excellent source that is way up there, but not as high as QW, and it covers many other subjects than alternative medicine and quackery.
Of course its detractors label it from their own fringe POV as a "self-published website," and other even more deceptive and misleading descriptions not worthy of repetition. Fortunately their descriptions and arguments have no weight here, since they are based on their fringe POV and hatred of a source that exposes their favorite methods as fallacious, instead of Wikipedia polices. Some detractors here are experts at wikilawyering so that their arguments sound almost acceptable, if one totally ignores all the facts regarding the website, its mission, and its acceptance by the mainstream. -- Fyslee / talk05:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Circumcision (beginning of attacks by sockpuppeteer Signsolid)
I have removed such heavy reference to Jesus in the article as Jesus has little to do with circimcision and it misleads people into believe circumcision is a Christian ritual, which it's not. As for having a picture of a famous person why not have a picture of Mohammed because circumcision is a ritual in Islam, unlike Christianity. Infact Muslims are by far the largest group of circumcised people. Also I removed reference to Jesus as it seemed to make it appear that Jesus in some way endorsed circumcision for Christians, therefore Christians should be circumcised, breaking NPOV. Signsolid (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Read my comment on the talk page. You are mistaken historically, and there is no way that the content you removed indicates anything about Christian beliefs or practices. It is historical material and documents that Jesus was a Hebrew, and they do practice circumcision. Christianity discouraged it. -- Fyslee / talk06:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
How dare you revert my edits and make it look like you're trying to be constructive when all you do is just revert my edits and not build any any further consensus because you're just happy to keep the article to your own pro-circumcision POV. I will not allow you to revert my edits even if I have to revert yours 100 times over. Signsolid (talk) 07:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
!!!! How old are you? What "pro-circumcision POV"??? That's nonsense. Since when do you own that article? Maybe I should ask "How dare you delete longstanding historical and neutral material added by other editors?" I think you should stop pointing fingers and start assuming good faith. I provided good reasons for keeping the material and you have only provided a personal POV based on ignorance of history. Let's take this to the article talk page. -- Fyslee / talk13:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Relevant links related to Signsolid's sockpuppetry
I think you have done a good job in your report to SSP. It is unfortunate that one person can be so committed to their principles that they end up violating the tenets of their belief system (I generally have high opinions of religious inclined people, since they are usually acting on the basis of what they consider to be "right" - which in all the major religions involves respect for other human beings and cultures, even if they are considered inferior) as well as the rules of this website. There is even another image regarding the cultural aspect of circumcision, so the encyclopedia has benefited. I hope that this concludes the disruption, although I am too much the cynic to believe this is guaranteed. I shall continue to watchlist the article for a while longer, but please feel free to request my attention should there be further suspicious activity in the future. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Manipulation is a disambig. page, not an article. Disambiguations are paths leading to different articles which could, in principle, have the same title. A dab page is not an article, and should have no contents itself. If you are OK with that, perhaps you would like to revert your most recent edit there? --NewbyG (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, looking at that page again, there are a couple of problems. There are quite a few more articles which should properly be linked at the dab page. And it looks to me as if the dab page then needs renaming to Manipulation (disambiguation). Also, I am thinking that there wouldn't really need to be an article titled manipulation, which would just be a dictionary definition anyway. Any suggestions? --NewbyG (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Creating a distinct and separate disambig page was a good idea. Although the disambig link was there, it has always functioned as an article. So it was a combo article, which isn't forbidden. Others exist. My concern is that no content get lost. How about that? To do that, how about just leaving a redirect at manipulation to the disambig, and collecting all content there? That should solve any problems. -- Fyslee / talk05:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
That's good. Now it is more obvious where any content can be added to the article. No redirects needed, just {{otheruses}} at the top. And I added some links to the dab page, which is what I thought it was. --NewbyG (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
There really is no reason to have two articles. Just the disambig is enough. That way we won't have any duplication, like now. Just collect every single See also link at the disambig page. -- Fyslee / talk13:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there does appear to be what would be a similar article at Social influence, which is also very much a stub. But the article Manipulation can be expanded if there is material for it. The See also material assembled belongs with that article, if it is to be used, not the disambig page. Despite what I first thought, it seems we do need two pages, Manipulation (disambiguation) is not duplication, though the "main article" is not very substantial. The disambig. page is for links to articles associated with the title Manipulation, of which there are quite a number, while the article itself is about the concept of manipulation. BTW, the CorenSearchBot discovered that the brief introduction that had been used at Manipulation was possibly a copyvio, (see my talk page) so I removed it. --NewbyG (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, everything is back where it was. That seems correct, and it keeps the interwiki links in one place. Cheers. /NewbyG (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
No problemo mi amigo! That kind of thing is perfectly understandable when English is your second (or 3rd, 4th, or 5th?) language. Actually you do write pretty good when you take the time. Just double check your stuff before and after saving it. Even I have problems with my English because I have been living in Denmark for 25 years. I'm really "language confused"!-- Fyslee / talk18:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
My region is either bilingual or trilingual depending on who you ask (check the list of names on the lead), so english is either my 3rd or my 4th language. We are having problems passing a law on the name of the language, let alone how it should be spelled. I understand how you feel about language confusion :D --Enric Naval (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Aha! I caught the "lemur" part, but don't know that much about them. Fascinating critters! Are you a biologist? -- Fyslee / talk06:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
There's way too much original research on that page. I don't think it's that helpful to describe individuals or single events; the article should be citing more-general reviews of overall trends. The recent changes to that page have made matters considerably worse, I'm afraid. Well, you asked.... Eubulides (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Any idea where medical reliable sources discussion is?
I thought I saw QuackGuru link to it, but I'm probably mistaken. It's from one of the projects where they discuss not cherry-picking research papers and similar topics related to RS, NPOV and OR . Thanks for your help! --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I have never removed a warning template before, but this is too much. Don't you ever template an experienced regular user like me again! I have replied on Surturz's talk page. BTW, I have considered requesting a RFCU on that user. On a lighter note, Waltzing Matilda is a favorite of mine. I just love that song. -- Fyslee / talk05:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
You stated at User talk:Surturz :
My choice of words may be brusque, but such an action long before a discussion is finished, with absolutely no shadow of consensus, is called vandalism. I'm sure the user has learned a lesson and will be more careful to ensure consensus before such an action in the future. -- Fyslee / talk 05:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Please review Wikipedia:Vandalism - Surturz's edit does not fall into that scope - note : Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. --Matildatalk05:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I guess we disagree on the meaning of "good faith". Edits made in irritation with no shadow of consensus in sight are at the least a WP:POINT violation and will often be considered vandalism. -- Fyslee / talk05:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
By way of background - Surturz and I both edit the article John Howard (where we don't agree) - its talk page would have to be competing for one of the more poisonous environments on wikipedia - at least for those of us from down under who are normally well insulated from such world turmoil as the Balkans, Middle-East and other well-known spots of contention. Having been personally attacked there innumerable times, I have little tolerance for personal attacks elsewhere on the wiki though of course am always powerless to respond other than with a whimper when I myself am attacked.
Yes I like the idea of waltzing even though I disapprove of theft of sheep, pursuit of thieves until they commit suicide, ... --Matildatalk05:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed you both edit the same articles. I hope Surturz has learned a lesson, and I will try to be more careful in my comments next time. Peace? -- Fyslee / talk05:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
While I've got you "on the line", so to speak, can you enlighten me on the story behind Waltzing Matilda, and the difference between the original and Rod Stewart's version? I don't know all the words to the original. I just found Rod Stewart's version on YouTube - "Tom Traubert's Blues". I just love that version since I'm a Stewart fan. -- Fyslee / talk06:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't know Rod Stewart's version - didn't know he had done one even. The article Waltzing Matilda is not briliant but not too bad. It is about class structures, an itinerant man who steals from a rich land owner (well squatter which canbe something different - but definitely rich and by the 1890s probably did own the land). It was written not long after some particularly nasty industrial action where shearers went on strike and clashed with the property owners - 1891 Australian shearers' strike. Banjo Patterson who wrote the words is one of Australia's better known poets. We all learn it in primary school and if you go overseas and have to sing something Australian - if you haven't managed to crawl away first - then it is probably the song that will come to mind and you won't forget despite blushing enormously! Your audience will almost invariably recognise it too. Is Rod Stewart singing about sheep stealing , up rode the troopers 1 2 3 ... ? --Matildatalk06:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
And the old men in wheelchairs know That Matilda's the defendant She killed about a hundred And she follows wherever you may go
is a bit depressing. I know "And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda", but not "Rockin' Matilda" which sounds more cheerful :-) I will have to look it up when I have a chance. I will also follow up the YouTube link to Rod Stewart's verion but can't at present. Certainly I too enjoy where wikipedia takes one when you start looking for information - the main facts are important but it is the less important facts which make it so interesting and to my mind useful. Accordingly I am an inclusionist but seem not to be running witht he flow in taking that stance at present. I concur with the policies - no problem that something has to be verified appropriately against a reliable source, but after that, wikipedia is always to my mind better for including rather than not! --Matildatalk07:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm the same way. I see no harm in including less than super important facts, as long as they are well-sourced. If it's very controversial, then other things might play in which would mean I'd have a different attitude. Generally Wikipedia should be more, not less. We aren't a paper encyclopedia. -- Fyslee / talk13:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
This edit introduced the phrase "many infectious disease", which doesn't sound grammatical to my ears. The cited source says just "infectious disease"; how about if we just remove the "many"? Eubulides (talk) 09:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I only added it to make sure readers didn't misunderstand "infectious diseases" to mean "all" infectious diseases. As we both know, vaccinations aren't developed, or even suited at present, to combat every single infectious disease. That's why I think adding "many" is a legitimate addition. Would "some" be better? -- Fyslee / talk09:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
This deception has to stop. If he doesn't do it, I'll have to take this higher up. We can't have deceptive editors here at all. Away with them! -- Fyslee / talk20:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Please don't do that again. You know WP:NPA perfectly well. Snarking at people a bit is one thing - this was too much. Lowering the level of civil discourse on Wikipedia in this manner is corrosive of the community. Just don't do it again.
I read your warning. I AGF of you and your intentions, but object to at least three admins defending obvious deception by an editor. AGF cannot have any weight with an editor who is obviously deceptive. That's pretty basic here. If an editor is cooperative and collaborative, they will not be undermining the whole wiki experience and policies by deceiving the community. My requests for QG to remove or revise his box aren't the first ones. This is an old matter, yet he refuses to stop deceiving the community. This just happens to be the first time I have brought it to the AN/I. If admins won't reign him in and at least scold him, what are we to do? We can obviously not AGF, and that makes editing with him quite difficult. Deception at Wikipedia in this manner is corrosive of the community. -- Fyslee / talk02:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
If you cannot discuss it in a manner that doesn't insult QuackGuru and the admins to look at the ANI thread, then you create a whole new abuse incident in which you are the offending party and will be sanctioned for further abuse. This is regardless of the underlying merits of the original complaint.
When you take an issue up in front of ANI, the result is that your complaint is visible to a whole lot of very important people on Wikipedia. You've been around for a while, including on ANI. You know this. If you chose to behave in an insulting and abusive manner there, regardless of whether your complaint has merit, you will get nailed for it.
There's no need for that. It's counterproductive to your cause of convincing people that the original complaint has erit. And getting yourself sanctioned is rarely a good life path choice.
I have already replied to your previous comments on your talk page. I agree with you.
While I've got you "on the line", so to speak, what is the proper way to deal with deception, if AN/I isn't the proper venue? Is it strictly the "way" I did this, or is it OK for editors to openly deceive, and then not once, but twice demand AGF? I thought ArbCom had already decided that AGF no longer applies in situations where editors have shown themselves unworthy of trust and engage in deceptive behavior. -- Fyslee / talk02:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I think ANI is a reasonable venue. I am going to avoid taking a stance on what he's doing with the tag, for the moment, as it might cause a conflict of interest with recent admin actions and warnings etc. But I think that going there to discuss it was basically the right thing to do.
In terms of someone's abuse going past the point that AGF applies anymore... Fundamentally yes, the policy is that once someone's demonstrated to be sufficiently abusive AGF fails to apply anymore. But the decision point for that is up to the admins. You need to be aware that others will judge the situation on their terms and background, and may well disagree with your conclusion there. That's why presenting it dispassionately (not so well done here) and with good evidence (done reasonably well here) are important. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I fully agree. This was not my best moment and I apologize for being unwise. Something needs to be done, but I didn't handle it well. I am not proposing to do anything stupid in my assumption of bad faith about him, but I will be watching him more than ever. This just happens to be one little iceberg tip in a long history of more serious abuse and disruption (including attacks on Jimbo's status) many of us who edit alongside QG have had to endure for years (in his present guise). Just run an RfCU and you'll see Wikipedia's nice farm turned into a plowed field with numerous bombsock craters. -- Fyslee / talk02:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it is deceptive for QG to have that box on his talk-page. I also think that users can't "more or less do what they want with their talk pages." otherwise I could deceptively state on my talk page that I am an admin on WP. Is there anywhere else to go with this issue? - DigitalC (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't do Wikipedia much so I am not sure how to best communicate this to you but the Spinal manipulation article seems to have a lot of negative 'research' about stroke and manipulation but does not contain the following study I think it should be included. Also I did not see it in you research stores. I thought it would be something you should see if you haven't already.
"Cassdy, DJ, et al., Risk of Vertebrobasilar Stroke and Chiropractic Care: Result of a Population-Based Case-Control and Case-Crossover Study" PMID: 18204390
91z4me (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
AGF and BITE
Fyslee. I have noticed that you have been throwing around veiled accusations (and blatant accusations) that editors recently joining Chiropractic are a certain indefinately banned user. (diff for Surturz)(diff for Soyuz113). While I have no evidence that either of these users ISN'T Corticospinal, I think it is important to assume good faith. If problems arise, a request for check-user could be filed. DigitalC (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't recall directly accusing anyone, only airing suspicions. I have asked for an honest answer from Soyuz113. If it later turns out that he's a sock, a dishonest answer can be used as evidence against him. I did this with CS, and he answered dishonestly, thus adding more evidence against himself. He has already proven that he is deceptive and is willing to use abusive sockpuppetry, and got himself indef banned. I was rather saddened by that because many of his edits and his POV were things I was sympathetic to. It was definitely not because of his POV that I supported his banning, as he falsely accused. When accused he began to start with false conspiracy theory charges and persection complex statements. Now if Soyuz113 privately identifies himself to be another legitimate user, then no problem at all. I will not out him/her or reveal their identity in any manner. If Soyuz113 will send me an email, my suspicions will be allayed and this will simply die out, and I may even defend them (without outing them). I have nothing against the user or their edits (other than the minor problems we often have with many users), but I do abhore abusive sockpuppetry and block evasion. That's what I'm after, no matter how good or bad a user's edits. You will notice that even though I am suspicious, I still answer their comments and am AGF on an editorial level. Until there is proof of sockpuppetry, I will continue to do so. My hints are more for the benefit of other users who might wish to begin to keep their eyes open and do a bit of sleuthing, a favorite activity of some users. -- Fyslee / talk13:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I for one felt directly accused, and your supposedly subtle 'hints' were not subtle at all. I certainly do not feel that you assumed good faith when I started editing Chiropractic. I think I have now convinced you that I am not User:CorticoSpinal, and only since then have you toned down your hostility to my edits. Sockpuppetry is insidious, but assuming every new editor of Chiropractic is a sock clearly violates WP:AGF --Surturz (talk) 04:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Fyslee - I'm bringing this to your attention because it appears to be related to your field of expertise. I recently merged three articles: Therapeutic horseback riding, Equitherapy and Hippotherapy, because there had been merge proposals on them for many months with no discussion, and all three had significant content problems and overlapping information.
The resulting article though is unfocused and insufficiently sourced. Since the topic seems to be related to physical therapy, I was wondering if you might be interested in checking it out. If not, no problem. Have a good one. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I took a quick look at it and made some formatting copyedits and cleaned up the EL. I have known several PTs in Denmark who are licensed in this, and the NHS pays for it as part of handicap therapy. -- Fyslee / talk05:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
That's interesting that it's covered by the NHS. I wonder if other countries do so as well. Anyway, thanks for reviewing it. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to help in improving that article. The problems I see are unsourced synthesis, and undue weight along with original research (especially issues of the merit of evidence based medicine). I think the best approach is to simply find the sources and summarize them paying close attention to undue weight issues. Macgruder (talk) 07:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Invitation to CfD Category:Pseudoskeptic Target Discussion
Just FYI, Fyslee, I am looking at your contributions to the Checkuser case, and I'm concerned that your last entry will be deemed a fishing expedition by the checkusers.
If it was part of the same edit pattern, that would make sense, but I didn't see that. Do you have more than account name to go on there? If that's it, and the editing is sufficiently unrelated... might want to strike that section. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that checkusers should be experienced enough to know that sockmasters can easily have many interests and have several socks at work, some editing in different areas than the controversial ones that got them blocked in the first place. There would therefore be no overlap in subject matter. This case involves similarities in username, editing from the same location, verbal abuse of opposing editors, and many previous blocks, all traits shared by CorticoSpinal. That's likely more than just an interesting coincidence. If a biologist found a bird in an area that shared four distinctive features with another known species in the same area, would we call it a "fishing expedition" if they were to request a DNA check to see if they were related birds? In essence many RFCU are "fishing expeditions", but when based on several distinctive similarities, they are judged as legitimate "fishing expeditions". Such do exist. -- Fyslee / talk04:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
speculation
I missed this when you first added it, but over at Talk: Chiropractic, you said "I can understand why Surturz would feel uncomfortable with this, but he's in the minority of the profession who supports vaccination, even if he might be among a majority within his circle of DC friends, thus giving him a feeling that his is a majority position, when it isn't." I'll thank you not to speculate on my occupation and friendships. It's inappropriate. --Surturz (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm very sorry and apologize for that. I wasn't even aware I was speculating! After observing your editing and comments for some time now, I just took it for granted as self-evident that you were a DC, which certainly would be just fine. We have some fine DCs editing here. -- Fyslee / talk13:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Dr. Ramanand Rao Jhingade
Thanks for dealing with this. I was trying to think of who I should report this to but then real life got in the way. My first attempt at google-fu and I didn't do to badly I think. All the best, Verbalchat06:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know if you've been monitoring Zinfandel lately, but it's now under Good Article review. If you can help address remaining concerns (ferreting out original research, citing any remaining claims that need citing), particularly possibly reorganizing the History section, please feel free. Thanks. I already addressed your concern about the lead section claiming the wrong climates for Napa and Sonoma. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
Excellent collection of bad and unreliable sources. These sites should never be used in an manner, including external links, except in articles about themselves. -- Fyslee / talk14:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
That's pretty strong language, especially since it isn't true. I'm beginning to wonder if English is your second language, which is just fine, but would explain some of the misunderstandings that have been occurring. I will reply at Talk:Chiropractic. -- Fyslee / talk14:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
you said: Your comparative analogy stands on all four legs as a comparison goes, except for the pretty major details that spinal manipulation isn't "bad", and chiropractic isn't "bad". Okay, yes, I'll concede that there are some "bad" uses of SM, and there are some "bad" elements of chiropractic, but we are separating them and dealing with the good and the bad in this article. That's what NPOV requires of us - this is exactly what I was trying to say. I was denigrating the "chiro is bad" argument. However, I don't think non-chiro SM should be mentioned in the article. --Surturz (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I haven't been proposing a "chiro is bad" argument, only certain "bad" aspects that are gradually becoming more and more fringe. Improvement is happening faster in Canada, Europe, and Australia, but far too slowly in the USA, where the vast majority of DCs practice, and where the political clout exists that affects the whole profession worldwide. I saw your denigration as a straw man and poisoning the well against myself and other mainstream chiroskeptics. I am seeing this subject as an American who has been living in Europe most of his adult life, has many chiropractic friends, has moderated a chiropractic association's discussion list, has written a book on chiropractic that will never be published because of death threats to myself and my family, has communicated extensively with chiropractic leaders, professors, and people like Keating, and has been studying the profession for ages and sees it from a more global perspective than those who live in the USA. My POV has mostly come from DCs themselves (both fringe and reform) and been very much affected by their writings and statements. If there is any legitimate role for DCs that I would support, it is the one that Sam Homola and others have pushed for for many years, and that is as a back care specialty akin to Podiatry and Dentistry, without the subluxation mumbo jumbo and overreliance on "adjustments" as a cure all.
I have stated several times that I would rather see detailed descriptions of efficacy in the respective articles for the methods involved. It would be easier to tie commonalities and differences between Spinal manipulation and Spinal adjustment together, than doing what we are doing now. My objections are thus not based on OR or SYNTH grounds, but on lack of appropriateness, mostly because of place constraints, for dealing with it in the Chiropractic article. If someone will start an RfC on the matter, and never mention OR or SYNTH, I'll support moving most of the efficacy matters out of the chiropractic article, but no one has started it and I am not inclined to do it myself, at least not right now. Starting and dealing with an RfC can be timeconsuming. I'm controversial enough without starting something like that. I would prefer to back up others who share my POV. -- Fyslee / talk02:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Well I've got nothing to add to what I've said except to reiterate that if there is a point to be made about Spinal manipulation in the Chiropractic article, then it would be a better use of everyone's time if editors restrict themselves to references that draw conclusions specifically about Chiropractic rather than attempting to shoehorn in references about a different (albeit related) topic. All I see in Talk:Chiropractic at the moment is the same points being made over and over. BTW your personal circumstances are really of no relevance to wikipedia, and any special qualification you claim on the subject must be ignored out of pragmatism. --Surturz (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we have been going around in circles for a long time, with various participants, from long before you arrived. Levine2112 is the driving force behind keeping this alive, where wikilawyering and forum shopping have been the order of the day. This isn't the first subject he's dealt with in this manner, often dragging out discussions for months and even more than six months on one topic.
Since chiropractic authors and researchers have no problem with blending the two matters and making conclusions for the chiropractic profession and its guidelines based on both non-chiro SM and chiro SM research, I see no point in being so adamant about refusing to follow their example. They represent the profession when it comes to V & RS, research, policies, practices, and guidelines, and if we editors deviate so significantly from their example, we are engaging in OR and selective omission that weakens article quality and violates policies here.
I would rather we moved the efficacy stuff out of the article, so we agree on that.
I'm very well aware that no one, especially (because of a direct COI) chiropractors, has any preferential status in editing these articles. Around here status is directly related to a good reputation based on a history of understanding of policies, knowledge of the subject, good writing skills, good editing, good behavior, and an ability to collaborate with editors who hold opposing opinions. They are usually inclusionists, since deletionists only alienate people and make enemies by directly disrespecting the hard work of others. This is the talk page where things are more informal, which is why I provided some personal background so you would understand where I'm coming from. Sorry if I offended you by doing so. What I would really like is if we all could get together, share a few beers, and really get to know each other. I find that getting to know someone makes it harder to misunderstand them and it encourages more congenial relations. We are, after all, editing at the same table. -- Fyslee / talk06:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Fyslee, hi, I realize that tensions are high at the Chiropractic article, so I'm asking everyone to see what they can do to reduce the temperature in there. :) I understand that Surturz has said some unfortunate things, but please, try not to be baited? For example, your post here, where you put his name into an edit summary,[4] and you're obviously reacting to the editor, rather than focusing on the primary topic, which should be the article. If an editor says something you disagree with, fine, it's totally okay to disagree with them. But try to keep your eye on the horizon, which is what the article should say, and not what other editors should think, if that makes sense? I think that will help discussions to go more smoothly, and will help everyone to get through the dispute, and work collaboratively to improve the article. --Elonka16:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
A difference of opinion
In the face of Edzard Ernst stating that the majority of spinal manipulation RCTs for lower back pain are in fact not related to chiropractic SM, how can you still hold onto this notion: Since chiropractic authors and researchers have no problem with blending the two matters and making conclusions for the chiropractic profession and its guidelines based on both non-chiro SM and chiro SM research, I see no point in being so adamant about refusing to follow their example.? Following their example? Whose example specifically are you following? You have been presented mainstream scientific evidence contrary to your own beliefs. So here is where the line is drawn in the sand. On one side stands the scientific skeptic and other other side stands the pseudoskeptic. Make your choice. -- Levine2112discuss06:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the "SM" above. We could have avoided all of this if you had just been consistent all along. Semantics is what we have to work with, and words do affect meanings and understandings. -- Fyslee / talk01:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I see you still misuse the expressions "scientific skeptic" and "pseudoskeptic". I stand on the same side and share the same POV as other scientific skeptics, who are skeptical of much of chiropractic and other forms of alt med which you defend, and they would consider you to be a pseudoskeptic, as described by Robert Todd Carroll, so I suggest you take this elsewhere than my talk page. Quoting him from the Pseudoskepticism article:
Commenting on the labels "dogmatic" and "pathological" that the "Association for Skeptical Investigation"[6] puts on critics of paranormal investigations, Robert Todd Carroll of the Skeptic's Dictionary[7] argues that that association "is a group of pseudo-skeptical paranormal investigators and supporters who do not appreciate criticism of paranormal studies by truly genuine skeptics and critical thinkers. The only skepticism this group promotes is skepticism of critics and [their] criticisms of paranormal studies."[8]
The only skepticism you promote is skepticism of scientific skeptics who criticize your fringe beliefs. That is the definition of a pseudoskeptic. -- Fyslee / talk06:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Changing the definitions to accomodate a belief is the hallmark of a pseudoskeptic.
Now then, you asked for a quote and I shall provide one yet again:
The authors also claim that 43 randomized, controlled trials of spinal manipulation for back pain have been published, but they fail to mention that most of them do not relate to chiropractic spinal manipulation. - Edzard Ernst [5].
So there is the mainstream scientific evidence from a scientist on "your side" of the Alt Med argument. Ernst states that of the 43 RCTs of SM for LBP, most of them don't relate to Chiropractic SM. Yet at Chiropractic we are including many such studies because some of us claim that they not only relate, but rather directly relate. Yet, they provide not evidence of such a relationship. Just opinion. I have provided scientific evidence that they don't relate. Well, Mr. Skeptic, what are you going to do? I present evidence, the others present feelings. So, are you going to let your personal feelings for me or the subject get the better of you here or are you going to go with what the scientific evidence says? -- Levine2112discuss16:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Just as I suspected, you once again misquote Ernst when you write:
"In the face of Edzard Ernst stating that the majority of spinal manipulation RCTs for lower back pain are in fact not related to chiropractic, ..." - Levine2112
You have been doing this time and time again on Talk:Chiropractic by leaving out the last two words - "spinal manipulation". You even know the exact quote because you occasionally quote it right, but insert your own opinion and OR when you misquote him by leaving out the SM part. Let's compare the real quote and your misquote:
"... do not relate to chiropractic spinal manipulation."- Edzard Ernst
"... Edzard Ernst stating ... not related to chiropractic." - Levine2112
You are making a talk page OR violation when you do that, because you interpret him as meaning chiropractic, when he says and means chiropractic "spinal manipulation". Now please stop doing this not so subtle manipulation of his quote for your own purposes. I'll copy this particular bit to the talk page so others will be alerted to your misquoting. -- Fyslee / talk04:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I quote Ernst in full and in case you don't know, chiropractic SM is my shorthand for chiropractic spinal manipulation. It seems like you keep turning this into a semantic debate instead of sticking to the core which is: Ernst has stated that most SMT RCTs for LBP are not related to chiropractic SM. Given that and that the threshold for WP:OR is that the source is directly related to the subject, how can we include an SMT RCT for LBP in the article Chiropractic to discuss chiropractic spinal manipulation without violating OR? You have the scientific evidence and the policy evidence. I'm curious to see if you will let your rational skepticism win out or if you will let your personal negative feelings for chiropractic (and perhaps me) get the better of you. And if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. -- Levine2112discuss07:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
We're talking about your first sentence in this thread. You only quoted him in full after I asked for a precise quote: "And just where does he state exactly that?" Your first sentence in this thread is like several others you have made, where you quote him without adding the SM part, and that's where you are making the OR to suit your own purposes. SM is related to chiropractic, whether you like it or not. Ernst wasn't even discussing that point, only that someone included chiropractic SM research without making it clear. You're trying to make him say something he didn't say, and Eubulides has called you on that one before. -- Fyslee / talk13:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Given that the threshold for WP:OR is that the source isdirectly related to the subject and that Ernst tells us that most all of the SMT RCTs for LBP are not related to chiropractic SM, how can we include an SMT RCT for LBP in the article Chiropractic to discuss chiropractic SM without violating OR? Let's look at that quote one more time:
The authors also claim that 43 randomized, controlled trials of spinal manipulation for back pain have been published, but they fail to mention that most of them do not relate to chiropractic spinal manipulation.
It is obvious from this quote that Ernst is criticizing Meeker/Haldeman for their failure to mention something. Yes, that I agree with. But what is that something which they failed to mention? Answer please. -- Levine2112discuss17:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the "SM" above. We could have avoided all of this if you had just been consistent all along. semantics is what we have to work with, and words do affect meanings and understandings. -- Fyslee / talk01:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I really don't have any suggestions beyond what's been given you. Sounds like you're going to have to just test the different possibilities one by one. --Ronz (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Turf wars have been waged by the profession over who should administer spinal manipulation (SM) because of concerns by chiropractors that orthodox medical physicians could "steal" SM procedures from chiropractors; the focus on SM has also raised concerns that the resulting practice guidelines could limit the scope of chiropractic practice to treating backs and necks.[9] Proposals for limiting the scope of practice to the care of neuromusculoskeletal problems of mechanical origin, with emphasis on back care, have been made by reform chiropractor Samuel Homola[10][11][12] and other chiropractors.[13][14]
The profession has resisted such proposals:
"It has long been the contention of FCER [Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research] that to position chiropractors as "back doctors" would be disastrous for the future of the chiropractic profession and would only serve to limit the choice of treatments available to patients. Based on substantial anecdotal evidence supporting chiropractic intervention, FCER is funding research that investigates chiropractic treatment for the very ailments that Dr. Homola recommends that we back away from: colic, dysmenorrhea, and ear infection. It simply doesn't make good sense to deny the efficacy of chiropractic in these instances just because the preponderance of published data is on back pain."[15]
The profession has waged lawsuits designed to prevent other professions from using SM. One was against the US Goverment's "Health Care Financing Administration" (HCFA):
“ACA President James A. Mertz, DC, DACBR, said, "With the latest response from HHS, the ACA's lawsuit against the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) has reached a critical point. While the ACA views the decision on physical therapists as a victory in itself, our fight is certainly not over. Nobody but a doctor of chiropractic is qualified to perform manual manipulation to correct a subluxation - not a medical doctor, not an osteopath. We will continue to pursue this lawsuit until we're assured that only doctors of chiropractic are allowed to provide this service to Medicare + Choice beneficiaries."[16]
The Arkansas Chiropractic Board has also filed a lawsuit against a Physical Therapist.[17]
Limited scope of practice: version 2
In the early 1940s, C.O. Watkins, DC, Chairman of the Board for the National Chiropractic Association, wrote: "If we will not develop a scientific organization to test our own methods, organized medicine will usurp our privilege. When it discovers a method of value, medical science will adopt it and incorporate it into scientific medical practice."[18] Some twenty years later, shortly after the death of B.J. Palmer in 1961, Samuel Homola, a second generation chiropractor, echoed those sentiments and wrote extensively on the subject of limiting the use of spinal manipulation, proposing that chiropractic could function as a medical specialty with special focus on conservative care of musculoskeletal conditions.[19][10][11] Homola's membership in the newly formed American Chiropractic Association was not renewed, and his position was rejected by both straight and mixer associations. Other chiropractors have also aired similar ideas.[13][14]
Because of concerns by chiropractors that orthodox medical physicians could "steal" SM procedures from chiropractors, turf wars have been waged by the profession over who should administer spinal manipulation (SM); the focus on SM has also raised concerns that the resulting practice guidelines could limit the scope of chiropractic practice to treating backs and necks.[9]
The profession has resisted such proposals:
"It has long been the contention of FCER [Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research] that to position chiropractors as "back doctors" would be disastrous for the future of the chiropractic profession and would only serve to limit the choice of treatments available to patients. Based on substantial anecdotal evidence supporting chiropractic intervention, FCER is funding research that investigates chiropractic treatment for the very ailments that Dr. Homola recommends that we back away from: colic, dysmenorrhea, and ear infection. It simply doesn't make good sense to deny the efficacy of chiropractic in these instances just because the preponderance of published data is on back pain."[15]
The profession has waged lawsuits designed to prevent other professions from using SM. One was against the US Goverment's "Health Care Financing Administration" (HCFA):
“ACA President James A. Mertz, DC, DACBR, said, "With the latest response from HHS, the ACA's lawsuit against the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) has reached a critical point. While the ACA views the decision on physical therapists as a victory in itself, our fight is certainly not over. Nobody but a doctor of chiropractic is qualified to perform manual manipulation to correct a subluxation - not a medical doctor, not an osteopath. We will continue to pursue this lawsuit until we're assured that only doctors of chiropractic are allowed to provide this service to Medicare + Choice beneficiaries."[16]
The Arkansas Chiropractic Board has also filed and won a lawsuit against a Physical Therapist.[17]
I'm not sure what you mean by "Not" in the heading (which I have tweaked so the TOC will show what the subject is about), but your addition of this sentence ("Spoon bending also refers to the apparent bending of metal objects by paranormalpsychic means.") was unnecessary since the claimed paranormal and psychic connection is already mentioned in the lead and in a section. Also the use of the word "apparent" implies that it actually does happen by such means, a claim that has never been proven. Such additions are not NPOV and are actually advocating the paranormal POV as a reality. If spoon bending or other claimed paranormal phenomena were an unquestioned reality, such edits would be uncontroversial simple statements of fact, not advocacy, which is allowed, but until such matters are well-proven to be reality, the types of statements you often add are forbidden "advocacy" type statements. You have already been subjected to ArbCom sanctions and negative attention because of this behavior, and I had hoped you had learned to not do it. Your advocacy of fringe POV needs to stop. Be satisfied with simply presenting the fact that such POV exist. THAT is allowed here, and in fact required by NPOV, if there are V & RS that do it. -- Fyslee / talk14:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Collaborative spirit
I'm sorry that my comments about Talk:Chiropractic #Gallup Poll revisited were interpreted as being uncollaborative. That was not the intent. The kind of changes being proposed there for the text of the article sound like they would be good ones. Our disagreement about which source to cite is relatively minor, and is far less important than our basic agreement about what points should go into the article. Though I don't expect that we'll always agree on every point, I hope that we can continue to collaborate there. Eubulides (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Much appreciated. I just got very frustrated and my feelings got the better of me. Now think about how other editors who don't share our basic scientific POV feel about such situations. No wonder they get angry with us! Editing here isn't always easy. Let's move on and improve the article. Please make a suggested improvement and we can work on that. -- Fyslee / talk19:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
This isn't is it?
This isn't, is it? [7] I thought it was indefinite but maybe a year, not sure. I came across this accidently. Here Please give your thoughts without actual names. Feel free to email if you wish, you didn't answer my last one. ;) --CrohnieGalTalk00:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
"Unusual lists"
As far as I can remember, any sort of subjective categorization of articles has been not allowed on Wikipedia. I am not going to discuss the merits of the articles themselves.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I think your concern is best expressed as: Wikipedia:Categorization#Some_general_guidelines #8, Categorize articles by characteristics of the topic, not characteristics of the article. A biographical article about a specific person, for example, does not belong in Category:Biography. - As that category describes the articles themselves and not the attributes of the contents, it could well be argued that the category itself is improper. As the category has already been deleted (and now repopulated) it may be best to discuss the situation at deletion review if there are further issues regarding the matter. I suspect that the community may well side with Ryulong on this matter, though my perception of consensus is far from perfect. Kylu (talk) 07:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
It looks like this has been solved by changing the name to Category:Lists of things considered unusual. I really wanted to understand what was going on, and interpretations of policy can be quite interesting. While I certainly did want a good explanation from policies, and you (Kylu) have at least attempted that, I object to anyone, especially an admin, making demands and refusing to explain why. A seemingly subjective and personal opinion isn't a good enough explanation for making demands and treating a relatively new editor poorly. That is highly unusual behavior for an admin. It looks like this situation is now resolved, and I hope I don't see it again. When editors do things in good faith, albeit ignorantly, they deserve proper answers. -- Fyslee / talk15:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Full sources
TimVickers has volunteered to send editors full sources if they are needed. I'm afraid I don't have permission to do that myself. Eubulides (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I tried sending him an email, but he has not activated that feature on Wikipedia unfortunately. Anyhow, in reading through his archives I found this thread in which he does deny being a sockpuppet of the DoctorIsOut or anything account for that matter. Given this, I think you should remove your accusation about him (or her?) from Talk:Chiropractic. Your call though. -- Levine2112discuss23:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like he did emphatically deny, just like anyone using a sock puppet would do, so that isn't evidence one way or the other. But it does clear up the question about whether he has denied a connection. Of course he could not be a sock of DIO, but DIO would be the sock, if that is the case. He does admit in his edit summary of a thread with the same DIO heading, that "Yeah, the doctor is out". Like I said, I am not interested in doing anything about these sock possibilities at the present time. That would require evidence of wrongdoing, not just evidence of having a sock, which isn't forbidden here. There is a whole interconnected sock farm with several that have been editing the alternative medicine articles, including chiropractic subjects, and the evidence is there, but it's a matter of whether it's worth it or not at the present time. I know of admins and checkusers who would act if motivated enough to do so, but I'm not creating that motivation for them at the present time, and they aren't going to act on their own in an improper manner. I'm just going to leave things as is, since I haven't made any charges of impropriety. If abuse and POV pushing continues, I might get motivate enough to present evidence to them. -- Fyslee / talk00:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
My point exactly. It looked like you were enlarging the section with details that might be better suited for the main articles. -- Fyslee / talk20:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...it seemed that your point was to curtail my entries, as you felt that what I had already done constituted an excess of information for the general vertebrae page, whereas my point is that the content I added is mere general information that was missing and should be included -- that's all. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)00:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't sure where you were going and wanted to notify you that the specific article might be a more appropriate place if you were going to add much more material. Even if the material you added was missing, that doesn't necessarily mean it should have been there, and it doesn't mean it shouldn't have been there. I really haven't taken any position on that matter. I just wanted to notify you of the other option, since we should keep that entry very simple, and far from complete. Since you apparently weren't going to add more, then there is no problem. -- Fyslee / talk04:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I was just letting you know I thought what you wrote was good enough to copy to my user page for the edification of all who might read it. Take a look. If you ever revise it, let me know. -- Fyslee / talk04:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, OK then. I'm preparing to finish up thoughts related to that post. Some very interesting insights rattled into my brain pan last night, it all needs editing and sorting out.
FX (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Peace
The Peace Barnstar
For continued handling of contentious areas in a helpful and civil manner, and especially for the ability to find and encourage solutions to disputes. Shellbabelfish01:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Fyslee,
I am responding here rather than at WP:NORN because I don't believe it is on topic over there. I strongly believe that it is valid for a practitioner to conclude that the results of the research on SMT and results of research on SMT by Chiropractors as interchangeable. However, due to WP:SYN, we as Wikipedia editors cannot make such conclusions - we need a reliable source that states this. No such source has been presented in the length of this dispute—that has been the problem all along. - DigitalC (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't the abundance of instances where chiropractic researchers and other writers use the terms interchangeably and cite SMT research performed by non-chiropractic researchers - and sometimes not even involving chiropractors - take care of that point? Chiropractic researchers will even refer to adjustments performed by chiropractors as SM. Non straight researchers ignore the distinction in terminology made by straights, especially when actually publishing their research in mainstream journals. It's possibly based on those facts that a specific source hasn't been mentioned. Eubulides might have one, but I consider it common knowledge, and common knowledge doesn't need to be sourced.
I've studied this stuff for years, read mainstream and chiropractic research, read chiropractic websites, participated or lurked on chiropractic discussion groups, communicated with association presidents, researchers, professors, Keating, and also very interestedly followed along with what's happening in the profession, with a number of wonderful acquaintances made along the way. It's basically subluxation-based chiros or ultra straights who insist on a difference in terminology. Of course this all would only relate to research of similar HVLA types of adjustment/SM, not the myriad other brand name techniques labelled as "adjustments", such as Activator, and the one (which I can't think of right now) where body contact isn't even necessary. I've seen a video of it being demonstrated. There were obvious cracking sounds without any skin contact, assumed/claimed by the DC to be coming from cavitation of the spinal joints under her hands. The patient seemed to be impressed, but some skeptical observers of the video considered busting her for fraud.
If any sourced discussion should be made, it would be to cite the fact that ultra-straights do make a distinction in terminology, especially WCA, ICA, and F.A.C.E. people. As far as I know, there is no evidence of any physical difference, hence a paucity or lack of mention of such things in real research. I obviously don't consider JVSR to be real research. It's of the pseudoscientific type, and an embarrasment to many DCs. -- Fyslee / talk14:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
It really depends on the article. In Chiropractic, we shouldn't be discussing research on SMT not performed by Chiropractors. We have Spinal manipulation for that. I agree with you that the majority of the content of JVSR is not real research, and I haven't seen any quality content to come out of that "journal". - DigitalC (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
You are touching on another matter, which is whether we should be spending so much space and time on "chiropractic effectiveness", and then discussing in detail the effectiveness of specific techniques. I have spoken on that matter and been ignored. I don't think anything but the well-known positive DC-patient encounter needs coverage, whereas the details about the effectiveness of various techniques should be done in their own articles. Even the effectiveness of the very relevant Chiropractic adjustment should be in that article, not in the Chiropractic article. That's my opinion, which is shared with a number of other editors, but our opinion hasn't carried enough weight. We've had endless "effectiveness" discussions and I just got worn out. If an RfC on the subject were held, I'd repeat my opinion there. -- Fyslee / talk00:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if that last response came off as uncivil. I just feel that we are going around in circles. Your interpretetion of M&H is different than mine, and I don't think that is going to change. DigitalC (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I can respect that. BTW, I wasn't aware that we differed on the "interpretation" of M&H. I would have thought it might be on the "application" of them, or maybe in some other manner. Would you be willing to explain? -- Fyslee / talk03:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Sure. I believe that what they are saying is that they didn't feel it was inappropriate to use non-chiropractic SMT in that instance. However, I don't think they are saying that it is always appropriate to do so. I also notice the nuances of the "we believe", which is not a typical way of phrasing something in the research. DigitalC (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Aspartame controversy, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Twoggle (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
If we can just describe the concept and why it is notable, we'll being doing our job. Heelop has always used Wikipedia to advocate for it as a real phenomena, which is good advertising for the scammers and true believers who promote this concept. That's a misuse of Wikipedia. -- Fyslee / talk16:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
What's happening to WP?
Hi Fyslee, just got back from a WP break. You seem to have a head on your shoulders and I'd like your opinion/perspective on the following tale.
My first post back was to Talk:OPV_AIDS_hypothesis (using my IP) listing Hooper's multiple scientific pubs as there seemed to be doubt over his publications. I was warned against disruption by editors NJGW and MastCell. Curious.
Looking at Edward Hooper in the OPV section I find material such as
"This is the so-called "OPV AIDS hypothesis.""
and
"With the enthusiastic support of the eminent evolutionary biologist W. D. Hamilton, Hooper was invited to take part in a symposium at Royal Society of London, the first time a non-scientist had ever been invited to such a discussion. Hooper's presentation and data were heavily criticized and rejected by scientists at the gathering;[2] the vaccine expert Stanley Plotkin wrote at the time that "Testimony by eyewitnesses, documents of the time, epidemiological analysis, and ancillary phylogenetic, virologic and PCR data all concur to reject the [OPV AIDS] hypothesis as false and without factual foundation."[3]
The history of the article shows that MastCell was the contributing editor for the paragraph above some 7 months ago. The paragraph above, to leave you un-aquainted with the intimate endless boring details of OPV AIDS, is perhaps a fair presentation of one historical point in the controversy but to present it as a current criticism of OPV AIDS is a very misleading and POV. Approx 18 months ago I provided MastCell with a more recent scientific publication on the OPV AIDS hypothesis which addressed the scenario above. But no mention of that source by MastCell.
I have also seen the number of editors being rejected for admin duties, and personally experienced the effects of over-worked admins. (ANI ignored my post on unsourced material being placed in a BLP - 2 very experinced admins then proceeded to tell me "Its a content issue." .... etc etc.... Bad times)
Anyway I get a picture of WP being in trouble around controversial articles. Either skeptical editors and admins are grossly over-worked and making poor calls and writing with very poor grasp of subject or some have decided to write a "WP: the Guide to whats crap and whats not" with no regard to accurate presentation of historical facts, just aiming to get readers to reject bad science in anyway they can.
I have just taken a look at the article. It's not one I have studied in depth and I am totally unfamiliar with the editing and discussions that have occurred there. Sorry. -- Fyslee / talk04:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - hopefully you have many other more important and satifying things to do than get aquainted with this topic at depth. If I ever get this article up to FA state I'll let you know so you can compare then and now. SmithBlue (talk) 04:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Your edits to the section regarding ‘List of osteopathic colleges’ in Canada, do not reflect the legal status in Canada. From its origins in the United States, osteopathy in North America has always been comprehensive health care inclusive of medicine, surgery, and osteopathic manipulative treatment, not just manual therapy. The majority of legitimate and licensed osteopathic practitioners in Canada practice comprehensive osteopathy inclusive of manual therapy. The terms osteopath and osteopathic physician are synonymous, just as the terms osteopathy and osteopathic medicine are. In 1995, the American Osteopathic Association, decided to modernize its terminology. Prior to 1995 AOA accredited osteopathic graduates were awarded a ‘Doctor of Osteopathy’ degree. Since 1995, they have been conferred the ‘Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine’ degree. Thus we have graduates with the same education and same scope of practice with degrees in osteopathy or osteopathic medicine. This does not mean that the AOA has turned over its titles to non-physician practitioners. Most of the osteopathic physicians practicing in Canada have a degree in ‘Osteopathy’. It is unreasonable and provides Wikipedia and the public with misinformation to promote non-registered osteopaths in Canada, especially when this group of practitioners does not come close to meeting any national or international standard for osteopathic licensure. By promoting institutions that are not recognized or accredited by the proper government regulatory authorities, you are providing Wikipedia and the public with misinformation. It is very unlikely that any of the graduates of any Canadian osteopathic college that you are promoting could get a license to practice osteopathy anywhere, let alone in Canada. Please do not keep changing my corrections to the section on ‘List of osteopathic colleges’. Clearly you are reflecting a bias and not the proper legal regulatory status in Canada. Please don’t keep deleting the important additions to this section which are required to keep Wikipedia users properly informed. Osteocorrect (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
FYI
More on this old chestnut (diff, and see revision history). I simply don't understand how scientifically-minded people don't grok that the demarcation between sci and pseudosci is neither universally-accepted nor a bright line, and I especially don't get why some editors find the tradeoff between a qualified title and a more robust list unacceptable. But then, it's Wikipedia, which anyone can edit. Once again I'm reminded of why I've been tending to refrain from doing so. regards, Jim Butler (t) 09:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
re: your comment "especially just to eliminate something because you don't like it" at Chiropractic. In fact, I am extremely pro-vaccination and pro-fluoridation. I'm also moderately skeptical of chiropractic. You don't know squat about me, so stop pretending you do. You are so anti-chiropractic you don't even realise you are arguing against NPOV editors. I've not seen any pro-chiropractic editors on the article. --Surturz (talk) 12:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
There is no such thing as an NPOV editor. It is an editing goal which we attempt to approach. I only have your statements and actions to go by, so your appearance of being pro-chiropractic, and your appearance of defending anti-vacccination and anti-fluoridation edits has me fooled. As for not knowing squat about you, you're probably right, just as many don't know squat about me. -- Fyslee / talk14:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Warnings
Your comment "so I'm just warning that others who support him can suffer the same fate" at Talk:Chiropractic/Mediation. Please do not give me any such "warnings" in the future. They come across as threats. If my behaviour irritates you, feel free to complain about me on an admin's talk page and leave it to them to warn me. Thanks. --Surturz (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
I don't have any derogatory information or vilifications, but RS do have some things that round out "the whole story," which is what Wikipedia is about. -- Fyslee / talk14:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I know of, and have alluded to, the "slant" that your articles provide. I do not believe them to be true, and believe it would unethical for me to include them in the entry, though I readily agree that others are free to do so. In other words, be my guest.--Alterrabe (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Mentioning the ADA position in regards to Huggins without mentioning that other regulatory bodies have found otherwise strikes me as blatant POV pushing. I await your answer to my question how we can amend this lamentable state on Talk:Hal Huggins--Alterrabe (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Pope Image
I was wondering why you think the image of the Pope in the man article is offensive? Also why you think there's not enough room for the image when it was the only image in the largest section of the article with at least enough room for another similar size image below? If you can name me a better and more prominent male only role then I'd like to hear it. Usergreatpower (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the very existence of this discussion indicates that this is a controversial matter, with the choice of whom to include being an editorial POV matter, IOW who is the most popular, and by whose opinion is that determined. We shouldn't even be going into that territory, since we need to keep controversial edits out of the article when they aren't absolutely necessary. You think the Pope is a great example, and others think the Pope is Antichrist himself, and thus the best symbol for the ultimate evil. If we're going to start adding such editorializing in the form of images, then why not choose any number of others, and then we'll have a long list of images and some sorting will have to occur. Then whose image will get culled and whose will be left? We shouldn't have to make such choices. The text explains sufficiently well, without an image giving free advertising for one person. Since this discussion should be occurring on the article's talk page, I'll copy it there where others can provide their viewpoints on the matter. Until there is a consensus for inclusion, and for which image, the image stays off, per WP:BRD. End of discussion here. -- Fyslee / talk20:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
been out for the night, thanks for the thought, will have a look in a sec. Now that we've resolved our differences, I wondered if you could take a quick look at Plumpy'nut and Fortisip - there are a number of similar articles and I don't think these are 'alternative medicine' but don't know where they belong. There's nothing alternative about them so IMHO they need to be in a different cat than 'dietary supplements', (I know they sort of are, but I think you'll know what I mean) which is one of our sub sub cats. Would you object to them being moved out to something like 'nutritional something-or-others' (if there's an existing one)? Not that I know much about these sort of sensible substances.:) StickyParkin23:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Boy oh boy! I haven't seen those before. Classifying all dietary supplements as alternative medicine would be wrong. There are many different kinds, and only the ones without mainstream-recognized proven benefit (using mainstream scientific research) should be classed as alt med. If they are proven beneficial, they become mainstream treatment and cease to be classified as alt med. There seems to be a large group of articles that are lumped together, but which should be separated somehow. Do we have another category that includes some dietary supplements? Maybe some should be moved there based on their evidence-base. I'm not an expert on dietary supplements, unlike Stephen Barrett. My areas of interest are more the typical forms of alt med, such as Homeopathy, Applied kinesiology, and Chiropractic, the last two because they are close to my own profession of Physical therapy. -- Fyslee / talk08:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Civility, Personal Attacks etc.
Hi. I notice that you have made a number of fairly provocative statements on talk pages recently, such as those on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring about ScienceApologist. I have been duly provoked, but I'd like to see if we can engage in some constructive dialogue about it. The first issue concerns WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA etc. If we can agree about that, there are then questions of the meaning and implications of WP:NPOV, but one thing at a time:
Personal Attacks
The first question is, do you think that personal attacks should be
forbidden to all editors (the current Wikipedia policy, which I firmly support)
allowed to all editors
allowed to some editors, but forbidden to others? and if that, given the nature of Wikipedia's editor community, how could that possibly be enforced?
I note your reference to "Dirty Harry". I haven't seen the film. From your description, I don't want to. Also from your description, people like that are sent to jail, and quite rightly. In groups they are called vigilantes, or lynch mobs. They are a "cure" which is worse than the disease they claim to counter.
To activate the same question from a more positive angle, if you're right about something, are you disadvantaged by rules that confine you to talking about the subject matter, rather than about your opponents? Is a good case weakened by being stated calmly and rationally? If someone is wrong about a specific issue, can't you trust yourself to demonstrate that by reasoned argument, rather than calling into question the other person's good faith?
Yet another take on the same issue. Which of these is more credible:
Bad editors are driven away by rudeness and personal attacks
Good editors are driven away by rudeness and personal attacks?
You have drawn attention to the slowness of administrators in disciplining breaches of rules. Admins have a hard job, and a lot of work to do. Which do you think helps them:
"Good" editors scrupulously abide by all rules
"Good" editors consider they have a right to break rules because "bad" editors are sometimes getting away with it?
I think I've made plain what I'm saying here. If you're interested, and we move towards on agreement on this issue, we can perhap look at NPOV. Or not, as you wish. Good wishes, anyway SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
You may think you've made yourself clear, but you have said so much I'm not sure where to start, and since the context is a bit uncertain, I won't even try. What part of my statements did you consider "provocative"? I note that a couple others have apparently (also?) misunderstood what I said, IOW they have ignored by clear statements that I do not support the way SA does things. Please be specific and cite me correctly. Then we can proceed. I note that you too have received warnings for civility and NPA issues. Nice to know that we are members of the same club, the human race, all of us imperfect. What is important is that we show a positive learning curve. -- Fyslee / talk02:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The following regards my comment below, and admin John's response to it. I asked him to respond on my talk page, and to be very specific, but he has not been specific, in that he doesn't even quote me. I copy both responses below for the benefit of future readers:
Jim, you ask: "Is there something special about his mission that makes all the above behavior acceptable, in his case?" This may depress you, but Wikipedia works in some ways like the real world, and doesn't even follow its own rules all the time. I believe that to excuse sin is to defend it. I'm not excusing his behavior, only trying to explain what we are seeing, especially as regards the community's reactions to his behavior. Remember Dirty Harry? Well, Clint Eastwood did many illegal things in those movies, yet audiences cheered when he did it. Why? Because nobody else was dealing effectively with crooks, and the justice system was also failing to deal with them, so people were willing to feel sympathy with a brutal cop who took out the bad guys. I suspect that is why many admins and users grudgingly look the other way when SA deals too hard with situations, simply because the job needs to be done, but our red tape gets in the way of doing it properly. Again, I'm not saying that the way he does it is right, but that the situations he deals with are jobs that need to be done. The clean way happens to fail, time and time again, thanks to wikilawyering POV pushers, so he does it the dirty way. You see, to attack him seems to be to excuse the behavior of the POV pushers and their POV, and that is also unsatisfactory, so people have blended feelings about the whole situation, rendering a clean cut form of justice impossible. Part of the solution? We need braver admins who will step in quickly and deal with the POV pushers he opposes. BTW, I'm not saying he doesn't have a POV that he sometimes pushes too hard, it just happens to be the mainstream POV, IOW he pushes reality, and that shouldn't be necessary. He fights those who try to force Wikipedia to declare fringe subjects to be mainstream, but they aren't mainstream. I think his frustration with doing something that shouldn't be necessary causes him to fly off the handle at times. I hope this all makes some sense to you. It's all wrong on so many counts, but that's life both here and in reality. -- Fyslee / talk15:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[9]
Wow. I agree with Dlabtot. Fyslee's comment above is by far the most unhelpful thing I have seen in my entire wiki-career here, over 60k edits and three years. Dirty Harry? Get real, Wikipedia is not Dirty Harry. Wow. --John (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I then contacted both of them with an identical invitation to explain themselves. John does so below, and Dlabtot did so on his talk page. Neither followed my instructions to be specific in their choice of my quotes. Here is the message I wrote to them:
Regarding this comment. I'd like to understand what you mean, so please visit my talk page and let me know, and maybe you will also find out what I really mean. Please be very specific in your choice of my quotes. -- Fyslee / talk02:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
John's response
Below is John's response and the ensuing result, which isn't pretty:
Thanks for your note. I think it is unhelpful to support SA in this way (although I do have a lot of sympathy for his good intentions and frustration, his behavior is very unsatisfactory and often counterproductive). Comparing a troubled and troublesome editor to Dirty Harry in a positive way on an admin noticeboard seems to me to send all the wrong messages to SA and to others who may be reading, although I admit it was funny. In real life cops who behave like that get disciplined, sacked or go to jail; it is a fictional movie after all. I do not wish to be a part of a community which praises and values vigilantes in the way your comment implies you do. Luckily I do not think we are yet at that point. Perhaps I have misunderstood the intention of your comment, in which case I apologize for mine. --John (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I thought I made it clear that I am not defending SA or Dirty Harry. I was only using Dirty Harry as a well known example of an unethical person whom the public likes. It's very wrong, but that's the way society works. It's not a totally black or white area, because it is a mix of good and bad POV, good and bad motives, etc.. When the "good guys" (cops) are fighting the "bad guys" (pushers of fringe POV), and the good guys do bad things to accomplish good ends, then the public has to decide which is the worse of two evils. It's a bad choice to make in either case, and I usually stay away from SA's conflicts, and I never defend him when he does something bad. I remain silent because, in attacking him in those situations, I will be seen as defending the crook's POV, and in defending the crooks, I will be seen as being against the good he is trying to do. It's hard to separate the deed from the person in those cases, just as has happened now. SA has many serious problems in his way of dealing with situations, and I never defend him when he does it. -- Fyslee / talk05:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to say I found your post (minor correction here) to be highly perceptive, and it's interesting that you got some strong reactions. I just thought you nailed it, and confirmed what I'd suspected, deep down, for some time. I certainly took your comments as more descriptive of SA's dynamics here than as prescriptive for how things ought to be. WP really needs to "pass some better laws" re expert oversight so that vigilante tactics will be perceived, by the large majority of editors, as unnecessary. best, --Jim Butler (t) 14:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Jim. It's nice to know that someone actually read and understood what I wrote. The other comments reveal a very superficial reading and then flying off the handle in rage. I wonder if part of the problem might be reading comprehension by non-English speaking readers. That would give them some excuse. -- Fyslee (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I read your comment thoroughly, understood it perfectly, and found it did not accord with my ideas about Wikipedia, as I tried to explain to you above. You may need to re-examine the difference between civil disagreement and "flying off the handle in rage". --John (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't referring specifically to you. There are others who disagree with what I wrote, and even after explaining it to them, they don't apologize like you offered to do, but repeatedly insist that I somehow was supporting wrongdoing by Dirty Harry and SA. That's not the case. My statement clearly distanced itself from their methods. My point in using Dirty Harry was totally different. It was about the social dynamics involved in why people react as they do to Dirty Harry's and SA's methods, and I lamented that it happens that way. It's all wrong in so many different ways.
Do you believe I was somehow defending Dirty Harry's and SA's methods, or that I was "Comparing a troubled and troublesome editor to Dirty Harry in a positive way"? What part was positive? I'd really like to understand what you mean. You offered to apoligize if you were mistaken. I have shown that to be the case, but no apology is forthcoming. What's going on here? -- Fyslee (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Fyslee, the simplest way I can maybe explain it to you is this. Dirty Harry is (was?) a fictional entity. ScienceApologist is a real Wikipedia editor. I loved that movie but I am glad my local (real life) police force are not vigilantes. I also loved the Flashman novels, but would not especially like to live next door (in real life) to a man like that. A danger of making comparisons between real life and fiction is that people will enjoy things in fiction they would not tolerate in real life. Does that make sense? --John (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
We agree on that point. I have never conflated the two, or expressed any sympathy for either Dirty Harry's unethical fictional hardhandedness, nor have I expressed any sympathy for SA's very real excesses here at Wikipedia. I was very aware that I was using Dirty Harry as an analogy, and I don't see how you could think that I wasn't aware of that. How you ever got the idea that I somehow was in favor of either of their methods is beyond me. Please read my original comments again, every single word. You haven't yet provided any quote of mine that backs up your assertions or insinuations. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Dude, all this "nuance" and "what your words actually mean" stuff just won't fly around here. This is Wikipedia, and we are hardasses about demarcations!! You spoke just a little bit too honestly, a.k.a. committed a major GAFFE, and it will now be replayed 24/7 by WP cable news networks, not to mention be included on the "List of Gaffes (not purported, but really real ones) by Wikipedians". (That list has been AfD'd several times, but always survives because college professors find it to be useful in teaching their students how to think clearly).
Bottom line, here's all anyone needs to know about this episode: Fyslee said "ScienceApologist" and "Dirty Harry" in the same sentence! The humanity! Now write 100 times that you won't do that ever again. Hate to break the news to you, old chap, but you probably will NOT be elected "most popular to succeed" during this news cycle. Unless you give a suitably contrite Checkers speech or something. ;-P --Jim Butler (t) 16:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the humor Jim. You do understand, just as you expressed above. It's amazing how some people can't parse a sentence or paragraph, but somehow pick out an unfavorably twisted interpretation they then choose to pin on the donkey, IOW myself. It all says more about them than it does about myself. Well, they haven't pointed to anything specific I said to back up their assertions, and I will still have to pay for using an analogy that flew over their heads. Keep up the good work. You're a real pal. BTW, how are things going with your boy? You can reply by email, since someone of the many readers who read this might be heartless enough to take advantage of any info you provide here, just as they have done with my well-intentioned comments. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey Fyslee, thanks, and the good vibes & respect are mutual. (Will email you also.) One thing I forgot to mention about SA is that he doesn't bat 1.000 in pushing the mainstream ; alas, it would be so much easier if he did. He's not big on nuance, glosses sources, and pushes the PS label too far (and that's just on substance; never mind his abysmal WP:DR). For example, cf. his extreme position regarding the equivalence of sci academies and skeptical groups as reliable sources. That's way out there. I get that he's saying they're both RS's for demarcation, and that is true to a point, but we still are bound by WP:PSCI (NPOV) and WP:RS#Consensus (V and OR). If we are going to depict the existence of sci consensus, we have to cite good sources, not our gut feeling that Shermer is a smart fella who usually gets it right. I wonder how many admins, who enable SA, even grasp this point? I mean, this isn't wikiality, where I just happen to weight scientific sources a little differently. SA is simply wrong on this, and if WP lets him do whatever he wants even when he's wrong, then... as you say, it's screwed up on many levels. regards, Jim Butler (t) 05:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Jim, thanks for that. I am certainly a hardass for the demarcation between fiction and real life, so you got that right. --John (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I hate to break the bad news to you John, but Jim and I are friends and he was being very sarcastic and humorous. I understand his humor. You can find his true opinion of my original comments a bit further up in this section. He understood the point which you and Dlabtot have still failed to get. Too bad, because another admin, a highly respected one at that, understood my point and agreed with me. If I am to find some form of good faith excuse for why you still don't understand this matter, I might venture to assume that maybe your mother tongue isn't English? This could explain the misunderstanding on your and Dlabtot's parts. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
You may wish to review the difference between "understand" and "agree" then. My mother tongue is indeed English, as a quick look at my user page would have revealed. I know your comments were well-intentioned, and I am sorry if I have offended you by disagreeing with them. I think we are probably finished here, wouldn't you say? --John (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Of course there is a difference. I just don't see any evidence that you have understood what I have written, and you have presented no evidence (in the form of precise quotes) that back up your understanding of what I wrote in the Dirty Harry analogy. As to my other points, I wouldn't be troubled if you didn't agree with my POV as regards the need to counteract the influence of pushers of fringe POV, which puts me on the side of SA's POV, but still not his methods. We certainly don't have to agree on that. Dlabtot certainly doesn't, since he is one of them. What bothers me is that you seem to still believe that I "praises and values vigilantes in the way your comment implies you do." Nothing in my comment implied any such thing, and you still haven't shown me any evidence from my statement that I do any such thing. I definitely don't approve of such vigilante methods, whether it's the fictional Dirty Harry, or the real SA. They're both wrong. That's what bothers me the most, that you could think such a thing, in spite of the fact that my comment contained clear statements that I didn't approve of such things. You just ignore that part. Dlabtot has likewise rejected my explanations, and he even went so far as to treat William M. Connolley's attempt to calm things with disrespect. Connolly and Jim Butler had no trouble understanding my point, and you and the infamous fringe POV pusher won't give an inch. I'm surprised that an admin would act in a similarly dishonorable manner as such a person. Since you have reneged on your offer to apologize if you were wrong, I guess we are done, since continuing is pointless. All I can end with is that you have indeed "misunderstood the intention of [my] comment.", and you have then refused to AGF by not accepting my explanation. You think you know better, can read my mind, and judge my intent, and I guess no one can convince you otherwise. I hope your adminship is shortlived, because your behavior in this situation is unworthy of any Wikipedian, much less an admin. I have copied my original comment above for easy examination. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Dear oh dear. Of course I am sorry if you think I misunderstood your comment. I am pleased with the reassurance that you don't support vigilantism, either here on Wikipedia or in real life. I maintain that your initial comment was ill-advised, but I don't think that in itself is currently considered grounds for deadminship. I am also sorry if I upset you as it seems by the tenor of your remarks above. Let us leave it there. --John (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you John. Yes, I was hurt very deeply. I happen to have a very sensitive and heightened sense of justice, and when I feel falsely accused it hits deep. That's what happens when one grows up in a home with constant criticism. I guess next time I say anything that (I later discover) could be controversial, I'll have to post my qualifiers more prominently. Of course that will involve being a prophet, but that's no problem ;-) Thanks again. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Fyslee, now you must know how another John, Mr. John Ono Lennon, felt over that "more popular than Jesus" remark that caused so many Bible-belters to burn Beatles records (digression: one of them said it was OK for people to burn them, since in order to do so people had to first buy them). But more serioushly: once again, a simple, ironic remark about a strange state of affairs is misunderstood and freakouts ensue. I like his quote about it:
"I was not saying whatever they're saying I was saying. I'm sorry I said it really. I never meant it to be a lousy anti-religious thing. I apologise if that will make you happy. I still do not know quite what I've done. I've tried to tell you what I did do, but if you want me to apologise, if that will make you happy, then OK, I'm sorry."
He might have added: "I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition...."
Nice one Jim, thanks for lightening this up with your humor. Lennon is a great favorite of mine incidentally. --John (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
References
Please keep this section at the bottom. TO ADD A NEW SECTION, just click the EDIT link at the right and add the new section ABOVE this one. Then copy the heading into the edit summary box.
^
Barrett, Stephen. "Quackwatch". Your Guide to Quackery, Health Fraud, and Intelligent Decisions. Quackwatch. Retrieved 2008-03-04.
