This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
Archive 13
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.
Thanks. I had totally forgotten about that. Discussing with QG is very frustrating and I sometimes just flee the scene to keep my sanity, leaving others to discuss with him and clear things up, IF it's at all possible. I'll take a look at it. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Facepalm ! He'll drive anyone crazy. He should be topic banned from all policy pages, including talk pages, especially ASF, and his sanctions regarding editing chiropractic articles should be reinstated. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Murdock has previously stated (before he was blocked) that he can edit from anywhere, but so far most of his edits have been from Providence, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and a few other places. He's a 60ish man who has the Seth Material as his religion and who therefore also has edited at Jane Roberts:
The behavioral evidence is also interesting. Rather than focus exclusively on the articles, one needs to notice whose edits and comments he's targeting. He targets the users with whom he's been in conflict and the admins who have blocked him:
"Wikipedia creates enemies every time it blocks an editor for the slightest reason. All I have to do to get a new IP address is to turn off my modem and turn it back on." [2]
I have imposed a couple of rangeblocks. Perhaps that will slow him down for ten minutes or so. Anyway, I see the logic of your suggestion at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Fraberj that Caleb Murdock could be the same editor as User:Fraberj. If not, it's hard to explain the editing pattern of such IPs as 71.161.231.108. Review this set of IP edits and you'll not see much in the month of April that doesn't look like either Caleb or Fraberj. Unless he is just following around people like yourself and Guyonthesubway. EdJohnston (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
That's exactly what he's been doing. The articles aren't the subject, WE are! That explains his vandalism. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Semi-protected
I semi-protected this page; it looks like I need to do mine as well; *sigh*. You might want to set up an open talk page so legitimate non-autoconfirmed users can contact you. Your userpage is already indefinitely semi-protected, and there is probably not any reason to change that any time soon. Keep well, - 2/0 (cont.) 03:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I've just noticed this unsigned addition to a User Talk page from IP addresses 117.192.157.127 and 117.192.153.132. The complaint is one that has been made by various incarnations of Dr. J., and the list of reviews being touted contains exactly the same reviews as were posted on the Homeopathy:Talk page by "Dr.Vittal" (all of which, apart from Cucherat which is the same basic research as Boissel in any case, are in fact already cited in the article - they just aren't as positive as homoeopaths tend to claim they are). I also notice that one of the suspected Jhingaadey socks is an IP starting with 117.192. NB: I am not suggesting that Skycop12 is a sock. Brunton (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Both IPs are no doubt him and should be tagged with the IPsock template. Can you do it? As to Skycop12, I've always wondered about him. Maybe not DrJ, but maybe a sock of someone else. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Something very strange occurred there, and I've always suspected Skycop of being a Dr.J sock. A CU would be nice. We know from his previous history that Dr.J is very devious, doesn't hesitate to lie repeatedly and boldly, and he's dumb enough to just keep at it. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmmmm....not sure what to make of it at present. If any disruption or COI problems occur, then it might be necessary to take this further. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Chronopractic
Hello- thanks for fixing those infos on D.D. Palmer :) I'm a little concerned for what you wrote about the references I added though, especially because I'm writing an article about Lillard (User:Jargoness/Sandpit).. and those two sites are used as sources. --Jargon๏̯͡๏)18:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
It's nice to see you're writing an article about him. His notability is zero, so he doesn't qualify for an article at all, EXCEPT that his status in chiropractic makes him notable. I think you can find the same information from more reliable sources. Note that the dates are questioned and the accuracy of Palmer's reports are more than dubious as he obviously embellished his accounts to make himself and his invention appear more important. His son did it even more. He had learned well from his circus training in slight of hand and deception.
Thanks for your great help! Yes, the dates regarding Lillard are different in many sites. For his "cure", for example, they mention the 6, 15 and 18 of September 18..
I think the only "certain" date is the one of his death; there's an article I hope it can be considered as good source which said that Lillard's tombstone was found. It contains photos, so it's pretty reliable in my opinion. (Still, my opinion :))
Haha yeah :D Just wanted to add, this document is very very very interesting. Thank you again for mentioning the references on Chiropractic History! Cheers --Jargon๏̯͡๏)22:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Ahh! The Lerner Report....it's been a long time since I looked at it. It has much good material, but be very careful since it's also a working draft with inaccuracies and omissions. If you find something interesting there, I'd suggest trying to get further corroboration from more reliable and "finished" books or articles. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I now love that document, even if unfinished, haha. The "fact" that B.J. Palmer may have changed the date of Hillard's treatment is very interesting; still, you're right- it'd need other sources..
If I may ask, could you see if my article looks more referenced and ready to be published? I'd say yes, but trust your opinion more. --Jargon๏̯͡๏)19:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I decided to go ahead and publish the article because I don't know if I'll be able to be online much these days. This way people can edit and improve it. Hope you like it :) Cheers --Jargon๏̯͡๏)22:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Re- Minor Edits
Hey- yeah, I turned on that setting in my prefs since I don't usually do major edits (or maybe I misinterpreted the term?); that way, patrolling for other users is easier (Hide minor edits). I prefer to manually turn it off when necessary, but often forget to do so. :/ --Jargon๏̯͡๏)15:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
That's why it's recommended to have it turned off as your default position. It causes no harm when a minor edit isn't marked as a minor edit, but it's considered disruptive and deceitful to do the opposite, and editors have been blocked for doing that. Better to just turn it off. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi BR. Please don't misunderstand me. I am as harshly opposed to quackery and fringe theories as you are, perhaps more so in fact. However, I'm equally opposed to the whitewashing of topics for specious reasons, such as I can see happening in the aspartame articles, where a frankly iffy chemical is being given a free ride by editors who seem to have other motives for doing so (they hate left-wing alternative medicine types who have started hoaxes about aspartame, or they have libertarian views that make questioning of safety issues anathema to them, or they work for the giant pharma companies that make this stuff, or ... the list goes on). I'm hoping I can rely on you to support my edits on the merits and resist the sort of kneejerk reverting I'm seeing there now. Thanks. TickleMeister (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Talk page of Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
In this talk page section, you mentioned... Gee....now let's see. That Ron Paul character....was he the Nazi or the Fascist? Either way an extremist. Oldspammer, just leave politics out of it. No one is benefitted by such extremism. -- BullRangifer 07:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Both Ron Paul and fascist / fascism are / were mentioned in the article--but Paul is neither Nazi nor fascist--he supposedly opposes those forces.
I don't think that Nazis are mentioned in the article yet? I don't know where you got that Paul was either a Nazi or a fascist? The article text claims that the subject medical-political group opposes fascist imposition of laws that take away an individual's rights and freedoms. This is radical / extreme to you? If so, wow?
Be not offended when I observe that fascism seems to have taken over capitalism to promote rather than discourage monopolies?
Forced inoculations are favored by extremists who like to take away freedoms. Ron Paul is supposedly against such practices.
Fascist forces do exist within the US government itself. 2001 anthrax attacks The source of the weaponized anthrax attacks shortly after 9-11 was traced to a US government bio-warfare lab. HIV AIDS origins have been traced to congressional documents that funded its research by US government bio-warfare labs. Human experimentation in the United States
Please keep your lunatic rants off of my talk page and off of Wikipedia. Stick to editing content using RS. Conspiracy theories won't do. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I have secretly been a shill for Kevin Trudeau all along. Now my $harma masters will surely demand that I return all those checks that are in the mail somewhere. Seriously, though, it is good to see you editing a bit more lately. You have been missed. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
LOL! Actually it's pretty rare that I even take a look here anymore. Too much drama and harassment, mostly from one of those banned from this page and his close ally. Brangifer (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Linkrot vs. vandalism
While I agree that the IP's edit was not constructive, and that it's readily apparent the IP is not being completely honest, I'm not sure a vandalism template was appropriate. Note also that the IP reported you at WP:ANI. Hipocrite (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Is [bullrangifer] any different from [brangifer]? Same account and user? Just trying to keep the names straight, no issue otherwise... Ocaasi (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Same user. If you look at the code you'll see how it works: [[User:BullRangifer|Brangifer]]. It's just easier to say. Rangifer tarandus is Latin for reindeer, and I'm a bull....;-) I used to hunt them. Very lean and delicious, just like me according to my wife. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
TMI ;-), but I get the idea. I don't have a wife, but she'd probably say I was like grass-fed kobe--the cow, not the meat--impeccable quality and full of shit. Ocaasi (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
LOL! That reminds of a joke I read:
A congressman was seated next to a little girl on an airplane so he turned to her and said, "Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger."
The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total stranger, "What would you want to talk about?"
"Oh, I don't know," said the congressman. "How about global warming, universal health care, or stimulus packages?" as he smiled smugly.
"OK," she said. "Those could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?"
The legislator, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says, "Hmmm, I have no idea."
To which the little girl replies, "Do you really feel qualified to discuss global warming, universal health care, or the economy, when you don't know shit?"
Thanks. I hadn't thought of that possibility, but it certainly could happen, so yes, please send me the password. I'll then stake my claim and make its purpose clear. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
BR, I don't mean to interrogate you about MEDRS, more see whether the particularly dogged application of it which I have seen by some editors at Chiropractic was shared by all or most other occasionally/normally skeptical editors. I think your explanation makes sense and I may indeed quote it some day. Thanks for clarifying. Ocaasi (talk) 08:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Sure thing. MEDRS is an important policy with some clearcut scientific standards to guide it. Unfortunately, just like WEIGHT, it can be wielded unfairly by strong editors who dominate articles. MEDRS applies to biomedical details in ALL articles. I am concerned about its misuse when it is used to prevent the use of RS when MEDRS doesn't apply. Because of Wikipedia's high goal to document the sum total of human knowledge as documented in RS, our articles - including medical articles - are unlike similar articles elsewhere. Our medical articles aren't supposed to be like textbook articles, but must include everything found in RS, including controversies and political/social details that would never appear in a textbook. Note that NOTABILITY doesn't even apply to such information. It only applies to whether an article should or shouldn't be created. It doesn't apply to article content. The misuse of WEIGHT is very slippery because it doesn't have a scientific standard to guide it, so it's misuse is often a way strong editors use their subjective POV to keep out unpopular details. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Jenny McCarthy
Since "controversial" has stood on the Jenny McCarthy page, it seems a bit POV to change it to false. I won't revert you though, but I have asked for further opinions on the matter at the BLP noticeboard here [7]. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 08:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Your comments on U.S. citizenship law were a surprise to me and I have since read more about it. The laws have changed over time and you may wish to re-examine which ones apply to you, although you probably have. TFD (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I would certainly like to know what's changed. I know what applied at the time when I was naturalized, at least I know what I was required to do. Of course as a 10 year old I didn't understand or know the law as such, just what actually happened. I also know about current law regarding my children who have two passports each. The US law requires them to use their American passports when traveling in or out of the USA. Is there anything of interest you've noticed? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Here is a link to advice from immigration lawyers, that says, "children born abroad to two US citizen parents were US citizens at birth, as long as one of the parents resided in the US at some point before the birth of the child". I know that citizenship law is often complex. It could be that your parents were being cautious in case the U.S. later determined that you had lost your citizenship. TFD (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
<- Very interesting! Thanks. Here's the part that applied to me:
What are the rules for people born between January 14, 1941 and December 23, 1952?
As before, children born abroad to two US citizens, with one parent having resided in the US, the child was a US citizen at birth. No further action was required to maintain citizenship.
When one parent was a citizen and the other a foreign national, however, the rules changed substantially. To pass citizenship, the citizen parent must have resided in the US for at least 10 years before the birth of the child, and at least five of those years had to be after the parent turned 16. Because this rule made it impossible for parents under 21 to pass citizenship, in 1946 the requirement was amended to create an exception for parents who had served in World War Two.
Originally, for children born during this period to retain US citizenship, they had to reside in the US for five years between the age of 13 and 21. However, an exception was made for children of US citizens who were employed abroad by the US government or a US company.
Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen mother who met the residence requirements were automatically citizens, and they retained US citizenship even if legitimated by the foreign national father. For a child born out of wedlock to a US citizen father, to obtain US citizenship the child must have been legitimated before the age of 21.
My father was also born to missionary parents and resided most of his life in Asia as well, so he too is a naturalized citizen. That's probably where the hitch comes and why I had to be naturalized, but I'm not sure. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Mornin'! I use my user page as my sandbox. You seemed to think I was somehow being malicious, scandalous, evil, whatever. :-) Where do most folks work on entire pages without interefering with existing pages? Please clue me in. Thanks!RichLindvall (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh my! NO, you're not evil! Sorry. What you should do is create a subpage, and make sure that it doesn't connect with mainpages, IOW categories mustn't function. Just create a link like this User:RichLindvall/Whatever_Title_You_Want and use it as your sandbox. You can have several projects on different subpages and work on them. Notice that page is redlinked, but as soon as you start using it the color will change. Just change the title part. Good luck. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
LOL! I know exactly what you mean. I've had the same experience and sometimes I wish they'd make that a feature. That edit needed to be made because that self-serving statement wasn't in the ref, but was attributed to his own book. I read the whole article and it's not there. What actually was in the article did need quoting. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Kevin Trudeau
The problem is the use of the term advocate. Trudeau is no more an advocate for CAM then Toyota is an advocate of street signs.Donhoraldo (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
??? I don't understand. What do you believe "advocate" means? He is constantly speaking favorably about it and recommending it in speech and writing. That's advocacy.
BTW, your practice of constantly blanking your talk page is questionable and impolite. You may have a "right" to do so, but that doesn't make it "right" to do it constantly. It is strongly recommended that when content is removed, that it be archived. (I'd be happy to help you with that.) Another editor, User:QuackGuru, does the same thing and is now in trouble for it because it prevents effective discussion. When I leave a message on your talk page, I expect to discuss it there, but I'll overlook it for now and discuss it here. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
For the help on that Birther article. I should have added the blurb myself, but I drag my feet on these POV-battleground pages. You handled the talk page much better than I did, although things seemed to have worked out in a good cop/bad cop kind of way. :D (BTW I wonder if the new para should be fourth instead of third since it came chronologically after the Obama campaign release?) --JaGatalk17:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Glad to be of service. The concern expressed by Wikidemon was within policy. Fortunately it was possible to still use some of the most relevant part of the content. As to chronology, yes, that's a good point. Go for it. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Derek Ogilve
He's only reverted it once with his username account, so I left him a warning on his talk page explaining the various relevant policies to him, and put the article on my watchlist. If he tries add that material again, I'll respond appropriately. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Chiropractic?
Want to get involved? New editor User:Puhlaa is making solid, patient efforts. Not making headway, partially due to 'resistant editors', partially due to unfamiliarity with policy. It seems like a good opportunity if you're up for giving some guidance. I'll stay out of the way if QG will give him a bit of a chance to work things out. Ocaasi (talk) 07:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
QG's presence makes me stay away. I thought he had gotten a topic ban (actually he did), but it must have been too short and run out. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
That is sad. Oh well. I was hoping an RfC wouldn't have to come first and we could just get on with things. Maybe that won't be the case. Thx, Ocaasi (talk) 08:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Question, let's say 4 or 5 editors wanted to work on a full draft in Puhlaa's userspace (yourself invited, of course). Would that be ok, to take the entire Chiropractic article as currently written, paste it, improve it, balance it, rework it and keep it out of article space until it could be proposed, probably in an rfc, on the chiropractic talk page some weeks later? Ocaasi (talk) 04:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I have seen this approach many times but it rarely succeeds for one basic reason.....not all of those who have the main or talk page on their watchlists are involved in the process or observing the process. The finished proposal can then get quite a bit of resistance. I'm not saying "don't do it", but I'm just expressing a caution. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the research link! I think I'll have to put it in the 'Against' section :-) (This subject has apparently kept more than one editor very busy). But it looks like I've got the major pieces post 2005 and so does the current article, which is somewhat impressive for little ole wikipedia. What do you think of: http://www.cleveland.edu/state-art/ . It's a literature review from the Cleveland College of Chiropractic. Not prime MEDRS exactly, but I'm curious if/where they take license with the research. Ocaasi (talk) 06:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I haven't seen this before, so I'll take a look at it. With Cheryl Hawke as a reviewer, well, she's alright. Rosner is an old stalwart that will die before he gives an inch, although he actually did express thoughts once that sounded like he could entertain the possibility of the non-existence of subluxations. In fact he worded it in such a way that he was obviously preparing a huge escape hatch to use when the profession finally admits VS is a fictive lesion, but that hasn't happened quite yet. I'm very familiar with ref. 15, and Koes (ref 33) has been an instructor in some of my postgrad CE. I remember when the infantile colic study was done in Denmark and Don Petersen (Dynamic Chiropractic) wrote a glowing editorial, not realizing it was classic junk science. You see, dimethicone has no proven effect on colic, IOW it served as a placebo for those poor babies who got no attention at all, while the chiropractic group was getting lots of attention and TLC, so of course the parents and child will feel better! I wrote Petersen an irate Letter to the Editor that appeared online, and then disappeared from the archives. He doesn't like me. The single positive hypertension study has been praised without cause. It's likely a fluke with some form of confounding going on. It needs multiple replications before I'll buy it. Generally studies by Nilsson and Leboeuf-Yde are of good quality, actually the best in the profession. I should note that it's generally a very rosy report, not dealing with the negative side of the picture, but of course it's produced by Cleveland and mostly features chiropractic research, so what else can one expect. In the introduction it mentions utilisation of chiropractic services but doesn't note that it's been falling for a few years. (I'm not sure of the latest figures.) I'll peruse this and get back to you. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC):
Great. I also started http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Ocaasi/chiro . You're welcome to come and chop it up however you'd like. I'm working on the intro, so it doesn't have the frequent 'I-think-someone-who-doesn't-like-Chiropractic-wrote-this feel'. If you want to work on the evidence sections or expand the criticism section, go for it. I'm going to ask Puhlaa and Digital C for their feedback. Maybe a few others if there's interest. Ocaasi (talk)
Thank you for feedback
Thank you for feedback on my signature. My previous signature was a haphazard attempt to merge a few different signatures. I had no idea it looked like a mess to some people, because no one had told me, lol. Uncensored Kiwi08:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
User:OrangeLisa and anti-fluoridation activists here
I am writing to comment on the possibility that User:OrangeLisa is a sockpuppet for User:Freedom5000. They are likely connected because they both cite articles from Fluoride, an ultra-obscure journal cited only by hyper-antifluoridation types. The journal is obscure because it is not accredited, so few outside of the fringe groups would cite it. Another sockpuppet for User:Freedom5000 was identified last week, so this editor is probably keen to get back at editing.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I have already tagged their userpage. There have been quite a few socks, both usernames and IPs, so similar activity, especially at this time, is very suspicious. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Probably best to write up a SPI report. There's been too much, recent, questionable editing related to fluoridealert.org to let any such concerns go for too long. --Ronz (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Good. Now, since this is obviously an unbalanced individual, or group of individuals acting on behalf of the Fluoride Action Network, what new socks are going to appear? I think that semi-protection so only auto-reviewers can edit is the best option in this case. BTW Ronz, I just noticed you don't have autoreviewer status. That's odd. I'd check it out and get it if I were you. I would have thought you would have automatically received it by now. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Given that it's to the point where they've vandalized ANI and got fluoridealert.org blacklisted, it could get worse.
I haven't paid any attention to the autoreviewer stuff going on. The first few notices I received on it didn't make much sense, and I never looked into it further. Has someone bothered to document it enough since so someone can figure out what it is and why it might be helpful? --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Permission is granted based upon the number of articles created, though WP:AUTREV is written as if it applies to all new pages created. Any idea what the reality is and how to update WP:AUTREV to reflect it? --Ronz (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but in actual practice many longtime and trustworthy editors have the status, even if they aren't prolific creators of new articles. I was bestowed the status without asking for it, probably based on this part of the wording: "It means that the user can be trusted not to submit inappropriate material, deliberately or otherwise, and that the user submits new material often enough that it is more efficient to mark it all as approved preemptively." I've seen articles semi-protected so that only autoreviewers could edit, which is a step up the ladder from just keeping anon IPs from editing them. It ensures that newbies and driveby vandals don't create disruption. So go ahead and ask any admin to grant it to you. Try a friendly one. You should also have WP:AUTOCONFIRMed status. I'd try for that first, then the other status. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing it out. It's this part of the Wikipedia bureaucracy that I've little patience with. How do you check for autoconfirm status? --Ronz (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I can easily check by holding my mouse pointer over an editor's username and the information appears, including when they started using the account, how many edits they have, and whether they're a sysop or whether they're blocked. It's because of one of the scripts on my monobook page. It's pretty nifty and also allows me to see edits (without opening a new window) when I hold my mouse pointer over a diff. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
This is what appeared to me when I held the mouse pointer over my own username: "autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, 29348 edits since: 2005-12-18" and from yours: "rollbacker, 53192 edits since: 2005-05-31". -- Brangifer (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
That's handy.
I'm confused about autoconfirm now. How's it relevant? From what I understand, it's automatically determined. Isn't it what prevents new editors from editing semi-protected articles? --Ronz (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but I don't know much about it. You have far more edits than I and yet you're not classified as autoconfirmed. Get that fixed. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
You're "autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker" and I'm "rollbacker". Are you looking at something else to determine autoconfirmed status? --Ronz (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I still can't figure out autoreviewer/autopatroller. I my request was declined, and the declining admin is short on explanations. I'm guessing that either it only applies to new articles (in mainspace), or that no one really cares if it helps with new articles anywhere else. As I said, this is the part of the bureaucracy that I have little patience for. I've requested clarification at Wikipedia_talk:Autopatrolled#Article_creation_only.3F. --Ronz (talk) 05:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
You "corrected" one of my indents, but I had it just where it belonged. My comment was in no way dependent upon the previous comment. When two users reply to the same comment, the replies can be at the same level. I am aware that this is not universally accepted, but the guidelines should be rewritten if there is enough consensus.A variety of conventions are in place, both on paper and in practice. I'm not about to undo the indent, but for future reference, please give me the benefit of the doubt about my choice of indent levels if I am not explicitly wrong. I don't mind (in fact I welcome) corrections when I am wrong. You have done a lot of good cleaning up discussions that became scrambled by inexperienced or uncooperative editors. Just like "don't template the regulars" try to approach experienced editors differently. Thanks.Novangelis (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
My apologies! No offense was intended. I wasn't aware of your position on this. I did it because I didn't notice your comment at first since it was on the same level. It appeared at first glance to be one paragraph. That's just one reason for indenting differently, but I understand your position. One solution for when indents are at the same level is to use a * to indent (or the appropriate number of colons plus one star). That makes it easier to distinguish between different comments. (Not all sigs are very noticeable.) This doesn't always work because the other comments may not be using that style. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
No off... er...
No offense was taken. I'm a bit of a purist, but recognize the pragmatic nature of your changes. One of the reasons I try to follow the conventions tightly is that I hope to get others to follow suit. I wouldn't suggest going back though my comments, but if you did you would find that I use the extra indent in a muddle. This is a friendly request, not any sort warning. Should you adjust numerous indentations of that type, I might go to extremes and issue a reminder, but probably won't. I've said what needed to be said on a fairly trivial subject.Novangelis (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's going on with the refs. They're good up until 26 and then start running in parallel threads, starting over in several sections. It's weird, and not urgent, but it might be good to figure it out before moving things around. I'm a ref novice. Thanks for adding the version link, that was a good idea. Ocaasi (talk) 05:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I still don't see it. The text looks good and the references look fine too, also in the references section. What kind of userscripts are you using? I don't use any. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
(od) Oh, userscripts were one of my first mini projects to get up and running. I don't know how I'd work without them. If you want to try just go to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:BullRangifer/vector.js , paste these, clear your cache, logout, and log back in.
//copy all of the following from the edit tab, paste it in your vector.js page, and save the page
//essential
importScript("User:PleaseStand/hide-vector-sidebar.js");
importScript('User:Alex Smotrov/histcomb.js');
importScript('Wikipedia:AutoEd/complete.js');
importScript('User:Cacycle/wikEdDiff.js');
importScript('User:Magnus_Manske/less_edit_clutter.js');
importScript('User:Magnus Manske/HighlightEditSections.js');
importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/rollbackSummary.js');
importScript('User:Anomie/pagestats.js'); // Linkback: User:Anomie/pagestats.js
importScript('User:Anomie/unwatch.js'); // Linkback: User:Anomie/unwatch.js
importScript('user:js/watchlist.js');
//pending changes and vandal patrol
importScript('User:Joshua Scott/Scripts/pendingchanges.js');
importScript('User:Ale_jrb/Scripts/igloo.js');
importScript('User:Philip Trueman/recent2.js');
//harmless but nothing special
importScript('User:M/reword.js');
importScript('User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js'); // Linkback: User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js
importScript('User:Anomie/util.js');
Is the side-bar hidden yet? If not, double-check your link. I typed 'BrullRangifer' as the user. Is the page User:BullRangifer/vector.js? Ocaasi (talk) 06:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Nevermind, your page looks good. Did you clear your cache, logout, etc...? You'll know they kicked in if the sidebar is hidden and you have new tabs at the top of the page, if page histories now are shorter and cleaner with a +/- next to them, if the references on the edit page are neatly organized, etc...Ocaasi (talk) 06:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
It sometimes lags a session, and I'm not sure what the exact trigger is. Can you try clearing your browser history and cookies, closing and re-opening the browser, and logging back in? Ocaasi (talk) 07:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Done and still nothing. I use IE and don't use the newer settings here. I don't like them. Whatever. Things work pretty well for me. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, that explains everything. If you didn't switch over to vector, then you need to install the same code at /monobook.js . I think it's worth checking out, but then again maybe not if you didn't even like the new interface. Ocaasi (talk) 07:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, most of them should still work in monobook. If it suddenly looks different, you'll know why. Easy to remove though, if you don't like it. Would you try a quick link for me? It's a no registration chat room that I set up through Chatzy, and thought might be occasionally useful on Wiki: http://www.chatzy.com/646659944831. Ocaasi (talk) 08:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, no problem. Sometimes it seems like live back and forth would make quick tasks easier. I just wanted to see if others can easily access it. I don't have anything to discuss either. I didn't even offer an email address for the first several months, since I thought all communication should be public (and pretty much still do). Ocaasi (talk) 08:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm totally aware of it all and if you understood the history of this individual and read even worse comments made by the many admins on this case you might understand, but I won't revert you. You are welcome to start dealing with this individual. They are an IP hopping anti-fluoridation activist hitting often random articles and editors to get their message across in far from effective ways. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I believe I've overheard a little of the discussion and if you have good reason to believe that this is a WP:DUCK then fair enough, but accusing someone of needing psychiatric help is pushing it. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]20:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
And I won't restore that part, but really, just between the two of us, they really do need it, which is why they are so persistent, don't get the point, and constantly repeat the same mistakes which reveal they are the same person. BTW, we aren't detailing those mistakes publicly since we don't want them to know how we recognize them. They have previously asked how we recognize them but we're not telling. Helping trolls improve their block evasion tactics isn't what we do here. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Edits made by sock evading IP on fluoridation
Diff: I added 2 very very very good citations to the changes I did to the water fluoridation section in the List of conspiracy theories article. The citations I cited are a National Academies Press book Fluoride in Drinking Water A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards which can be read here http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571 and the Congressional Report RL33280 CRS Report for Congress Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review of Fluoridation and Regulation Issues which can be read here http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/08Mar/RL33280.pdf Both of those sources are of a very high standard and both of those indicate adverse health effects of fluoride. The changes I made are legitimate and I was given a notice that I was doing disruptive editing and wrongly warned that if I continue to do vandalize Wikipedia with the following edit to the water fluoridation section part of the List of conspiracy theories article I will be blocked. http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=404656279 The edit I made is in no way vandalism or disruptive. The edit I made is true and has very very good sources cited.
Diff: While I would not have characterised your edits as vandalism, you did misstate the sources. The sources you provide appear to be reliable, and appear to reliably contradict the statement you made: the first report summary, for example, recommended lowering fluoride levels in water but that water fluoridation should be practised. You changed the statement to state that most studies have indicated adverse health effects; I see little no indication that water fluoridation has adverse health effects in sufficiently low concentrations in the references you provided, and two sources don't establish "most", either. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]17:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
What the IP later added:
Diff: The 2006 National Research Council's report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards and the 2008 CRS Report for Congress Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review of Fluoridation and Regulation Issues did find associations to adverse health effects with fluoride in drinking water.[1][2]
Speedy deletion is only for articles where the speedy criteria as listed apply--one cannot make up one's own. This is an important principle even with articles that should not have been created. It is furthermore not logically consistent to apply both an unreferenced tag and a tag for references of inadequate quality. DGG ( talk ) 19:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Please WP:AGF, since tone on the internet is largely perceived. Note also that this comment came after already having to redact a personal attack BullRangifer left about this IP. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]20:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I did hit it a bit too quickly in the process of cleaning up after the anti-fluoridation vandal/spammer/block-evading sock. Yes, even they do occasionally make civil comments, but they aren't allowed to edit Wikipedia at all, even their own talk page. Not when they are indef blocked. This just happens to be one of their now blocked IP hopping socks, and their talk page should be protected as well. What it gets down to is that the individual(s) are indef banned, hence any edits or comments made by them, regardles of whether they use a registered username or an IP, are block evasion, and that's not allowed. While it might not look nice to remove a civil comment, it is recommended and common practice to remove ALL actions by indef banned users. They aren't allowed to get near the "edit this page" button. Note that helping an indef banned user only encourages them. This isn't a "newbie" in the traditional sense. It's an unbalanced fanatic.
Being blocked doesn't remove your right to edit your own talk page unless the right is specifically removed, which it has not been. And as far as I'm aware, the connection between the IP and the sockmaster mentioned before has yet to be established. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]20:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Being indef banned usually does remove that right, and in this case we are well behind the curve on stopping this user. If you wish to argue a technicality and defend this person, go for it. Blocked editors who misuse their talk page usually have that right removed. It just hasn't happened yet. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
It's hardly a technicality, Brangifer: posting a civil reply to a message left for the user is not abusing one's talk page, and using rollback in such a situation is cause for the right to be removed if it happens again. The user is not indef banned, and even if they were, there's still no established connection between the sockmaster and this IP, and Fetchcomms mentioned as much when he blocked the IP, which is why the IP was blocked on other grounds. I have no intention of arguing a technicality, I am arguing the point that rollback should not be used to revert good-faith edits of an editor on their own talk page, blocked or not. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]20:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I do wish you'd spend more time monitoring those who abuse the project than those who, although imperfectly, are trying to protect it. Please help in this endeavor. Monitor the various water and fluoridation articles for sock activity and deal with any socks who exhibit DUCKlike behavior. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not monitoring you BR, but you have declined to indicate what makes you think this is a DUCK, declined to file an SPI claiming that it's too slow even though by now it most likely would have been done with and the IP blocked as a sock, and it's popped up on my watchlist that you've been repeatedly following the IP around, have made at least one personal attack against them, and have inappropriately rolled back their edits at least once. I can't do anything to help with sockpuppetry allegations for which there is no visible evidence, all I can do is address issues which I have spotted and can deal with. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]20:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Sigh... If you were following this matter you wouldn't be in doubt. Even top admins aren't filing SPIs on this case anymore because it's developing too fast and filing such SPIs only delays us. (There are archived SPIs.) Do you know what an IP hopping sock who uses proxies is capable of? That's what's happening. The list of IPs is growing fast. Since you're not interested in following along and are just exercising bad faith toward me, an editor with a much longer history here than yourself, why not just back off, okay? I'll stay out of your hair and you stay out of mine, because right now you're only encouraging the socks.
In fact, I'll just make it plain: Stay off my talk page as you have shown you can't even deal with the criticism on your own talk page, and I'm getting tired of your meddling in this matter which you plainly don't understand. I don't see why I should put up with more grief from you, when an indef banned sockmaster is already causing us plenty of problems. Right now you are standing with your arms around them in my wikirifle sights and I'm not interested in anyone but the banned sockmaster getting hit, so I suggest you distance yourself from them and this whole matter. Don't reply. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
NOTE ADDED AFTER ARCHIVING FOR HISTORICAL PURPOSES
The "fluoride spammer" has now received the hardest sanction that can be imposed, a community imposed indefinite ban:
I see you are aware of the unscrupulous tactics some people use to suppress points of view on Wikipedia by using off-wiki harassment. This has happened to me just once so far, based on edits I have made to articles that you evidently watch from time to time. Because I strongly agree with your idea of looking at an editor's "learning curve," I invite your attention to mine, and will take care to consider carefully any advice you have for me about editing on contentious topics. Wishing you all the best in a happy new year. (Great screen name, by the way, and more pronounceable than mine.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Happy New Year! Nice to meet you. I'd be happy to keep an eye on how you're doing. Please drop me a note here if you feel you need advice. I'll watchlist your talk page and I might notice your editing. I currently "have 4,903 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." Many of them are very controversial topics. Many of them are medical and alternative medicine subjects since that's my area of interest and knowledge. I'm in the medical field and my personal POV is that of a scientific skeptic, but, as a "Wikipedian first", I defend the inclusion of articles about total nonsense (hence the existence of many fringe, pseudoscientific, i.e. alternative medicine subjects here) as long as it's properly sourced. A logical corollary is that I abhor the inclusion of poorly sourced content, nonsensical or not. NPOV and NOTABILITY require this attitude.
As far as your username goes, that's a very personal matter. In principle, if a name (spoken or written) is difficult to pronounce or write, it can lessen the inclination of others to take contact, IOW it can isolate you. A name is just like a doorknob: if it's hard to get hold of, the door won't get opened as often. Since I'm an American living in a foreign country, I commonly use and allow use of the local pronunciation of my real name. That's an important concession I must make in order to adapt to the environment. I have no right to force them to use my American pronunciation!
If you're so inclined, you can do what I do with my username. If you look at the code, you'll see I use a shorter nickname. You could do the same if you wish. Make sure it's not already taken as someone else's username. Register it as well so you won't get impersonated. That has happened to me! Then just leave a note there explaining why you have registered that name and that you don't intend to use it as an improper sock account. An admin registered my nickname for me to protect me from such impersonation. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. The number appears again in the body. Should that one use the same format? In English (this is the English Wikipedia, it would be improper to leave out the comma. I'll let you fix it if necessary. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah! Now i understand. I went back and checked and you're right. What I did had no effect at all! The template just does what it's supposed to do. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reverts
Hi BullRangifer.
Thanks for the reverts on my talk page and for archiving the Herbalism comments. Sorry for any trouble, it was at risk of getting quite out of hand.
"Homeopathy did not espouse the doctrine of signatures. The founder of Homoeopathy in his Organon of Medicine in aphorism 110 stated clearly it had no place or reference to the curative power of drugs."
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't find it in the quote of aphorism 110 provided there. The obvious similarity (in superstitious thinking) between the doctrine of signatures and the law of similars makes me wonder if some OR is occurring.
A search quickly produced this statement from a homeopathy article:
"two key concepts in homeopathic theory - miasms and the doctrine of signatures"[8]
Please help me research this matter (you can use the search I have linked above) and possibly revise or remove that possibly dubious statement or section. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Book Review [9]: "I have very loosely understood the idea of the Doctrine of Signatures from Paracelsus, as quoted in Yasgur's Homeopathic Dictionary and Holistic Health Reference: God would not place a disease upon the Earth without providing a cure for it, and a clue to the cure's identity. He places a signature upon it by making remedies resemble the organs or maladies they can cure." I believe the Law of Similars has the same basic idea.
Miasms, as http://miasms.org tells it are a more abstruse concept, something about distributed energy communications. "a hereditary genetic energetic disturbance or burden which can, over time, potentially involve relatively serious organic compromise, the expression of which also depends on a multitude of endogenous and exogenous factors. These factors possess a natural tropism for the site of miasmatic predominance or burden as it represents the body's energetic weak-spot...Miasms may derive their power through the "memory of water". a phenomenon demonstrated through Dr. Masaru Emoto's magnificant work involving water crystal photography, whereby, and by extension, the author postulates, an "imprint" upon the organism's predominantly affected organ's (organs' or region's) liquid crystal matrix is "engraved", such that an actual conformational change at the DNA level results. It is in this postulated conformational change of DNA structure that variation from potentially optimal expression may reside and through which miasmatic burdens might then exert their deleterious effects." Ocaasi (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
LOL! That's brilliant. Classic pseudoscientific gobbledygook at its best. Thanks for the laugh.
The Law of Similars is a key concept for sure. I believe the Doctrine of Signatures was a precursor from Greek tracing back to...Paracelsus? It appears Hahnemann took this Doctrine and extended it to a Law relating to treatment. Something like... God gives us cures for any disease, and there are clues which we can pick up to determine the cure. This is the Doctrine of Signatures, that there are clues. The Law of Similars was Hahnemann's revelation that we cure ourselves with a hair of the dog that bit you, so that if you had a fever, you might take Jalapeno diluted extremely in water. (Incorporating the nifty principle that potency and dosage are inversely related). LoS took the DoS notion of clues and combined it with the idea that we heal the body by triggering its own curative mechanisms. So DoS suggested that clues existed, and LoS suggested the clues would be similar to the symptoms they were going to cure.
These links are from a homeopath who writes incredibly thorough, well-sourced essays about the field's intellectual history. If you have the time or interest: principles, Hahnemann's ideology, miasms
note: my expertise in this area is limited; i'm basing this on good but fast research. Don't go to arbcom with it, but you can probably take it to a talk page. Ocaasi (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'm familiar with User:Peter morrell. He was previously very active on homeopathy topics and a strong POV pusher. At one point in time he decided to stop editing homeopathy subjects. He seems to have really done it because I find very little since then. I think he was just too close to the subject to not get personally involved. He is very knowledgeable on the subject. Unlike User:DanaUllman he hasn't been repeatedly banned.
You've really been around the pseudoscience block :). I wouldn't be surprised if one of those articles included a quotation from Hahnemann (they're very quote heavy). I'll take a peak. Ocaasi (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
How can I say this without sound creepy. I read through every Chiropractic archive, AN/I, and Arbcom case. I found this editor who was pretty reasonable and a skeptic, and this other cat Levine, and they had a good, long reasonable back and forth. Completely unrelated, I found an editor with a moose-name that was pretty reasonable and a skeptic and had been around a long time, and also put a thread on his talk page recently disclosing a name change. And it all made sense. I don't know 'who' who is, perhaps a name, whatever that means, but I know you've been up and down the roads here a few times. I'm surprised you don't seem any worse for wear for it. And it seems, to be crude about it, like you've won, and your vision of how pseudoscience should be handled prevailed... something I'm reluctant to completely let stand at times, but understand was probably good for the encyclopedia in other ways. Ocaasi (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
LOL! Not creepy at all, just good detective work. Yes, I've survived, but am a bit worn. It can be quite stressful here, but I've learned to often back off and let others spontaneously chime in. If no one sees a need for doing it, then I take that as a cue that maybe I shouldn't make a big deal of the matter either. Wikipedia isn't dependent on me alone and my opinion is just one among many. I often have mixed feelings about the victory of scientific thinking here in the sense that some skeptics and scientists occasionally take it too far and attempt to exclude nonsense. That's a denial of the purpose of Wikipedia. We're supposed to document the sum total of human knowledge, and that includes all kinds of experiences, fringe beliefs, superstitions, quack theories, pseudoscience, and alternative medicine methods. The deciding factor is if it's notable and we can find RS that mention it. That automatically excludes the ideas that get absolutely no traction anywhere and are only found on SPS. So occasionally you may find I stand on the opposite side of a debate from other skeptics making a comment defending inclusion, simply because there are sources, not because I advocate the idea. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Excerpts from Morrell
Hahnemann declares that the true actions of medicines reside in their "dynamic spiritual power of altering man’s health." [Organon, xv] Such is a power "hidden in the invisible interior of medicines," [Organon, xv] which cannot be reliably plumbed or discerned from considering any aspects of their external appearances—an ancient approach [doctrine of signatures] that he very roundly condemns. Indeed, as Hahnemann explains, what had been described about medicines had very largely been "inferred, ascribed, or imagined…in conformity with…[certain rules] and in direct opposition to nature." [Organon, xvi] http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/articles/viewallopathy.htm
Having decided that only single drugs were to be employed in a sane and rational medicine, the next task Hahnemann encountered was how to decide what healing properties any drug actually contains hidden within it, and how this information might be obtained. Dismissing at the outset such ideas as the doctrine of signatures, the answer to this problem came to him from consideration of the effects of poisons, in which he had had a long interest and fascination. [goes on to describe ingesting small doses of poison, evidently not what was suggested by the DoS]
By ingesting a small dose of a substance over a few days one can begin to gain great insights into the nature of a drug, because what is revealed in the proving is the drug's sphere of action within the body, what organs and systems it affects [resonates with] most strongly and what subtle impacts it has on likes and dislikes, modalities, sleep, dreams and mental states. When compiled together, this information translates into the drug picture [therapeutic image] of the drug in question as recorded in the materia medica. In many respects, this image represents the inner essence of that substance. And it is here perhaps that we can see a subtle connection between the proving and poisoning with the more ancient doctrine of signatures. "According to the doctrine of signatures, widely believed in many cultures, features in the appearance of a plant indicate its utility," [Steiner, 26] Hahnemann "definitely rejected [the law of signatures]...in his Materia Medica Pura we read under Chelidonium...’the ancients imagined that the yellow colour of the juice of this plant was an indication (signature) of its utility in bilious diseases...the importance of human health does not admit of any such uncertain directions for the of medicines. It would be criminal frivolity to rest contented with such guesswork at the bedside of the sick.’’ [Hahnemann quoted in Hobhouse, 1933, 137-8] http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/articles/principles.htm
"Paracelsus was also a firm believer in the doctrine of signatures, and in illustration of it explained every single part of St. John's Wort [Hypericum perforatum] in terms of this belief "...the holes in the leaves mean that this herb helps all inner and outer orifices of the skin...the blooms rot in the form of blood, a sign that it is good for wounds and should be used where flesh has to be treated." [Griggs, 50] http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/articles/principles.htm
Sources Morrell cites
Cornelia Richardson-Boedler, Doctrine of Signatures: a Historical, Philosophical and Scientific View [I], BHJ 88, 1999, 172-177
Cornelia Richardson-Boedler, Doctrine of Signatures: a Historical, Philosophical and Scientific View [II], BHJ 89, 2000, 26-28
Barbara Griggs, Green Pharmacy A History of Herbal Medicine, London: Jill Norman & Hobhouse, 1981
Keep an eye, the next few days could be interesting. QG pushed hard for inclusion of one Ernst study at Vertebral artery dissection and it attracted some attention regarding spinal manipulation. I think it is leading to balanced improvement, but I doubt it will happen quietly.
Also, thinking about Chiropractic and fatality incidence rates (say 26 since 1934 or even boost it up to 200 since 1934, 8x), I was wondering about CSM vs. MSM fatality rates, and how viewing AltMed is important in that context. This blog article (not an RS) sums up the sentiment well: http://tomballard.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/spreading-fear-of-chiropractic/
Also, related. There are some armchair analyses regarding relative malpractice insurance costs. One figure cited CSM at between 1,000-2,000 per year and MSM at 10,000-20,000. Does this indicate that the market/businesses don't view Chiropractic risk the same way as skeptics do? Or is the issue simply that since benefits haven't been proven that no risk is worth it? Do MSM practices face the same questions? Ocaasi (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I haven't been following the matter very closely, largely because it's QG making a push and I don't want to get tarred and feathered by JFW for guilt by association. I happen to agree that the Ernst study should be included in the body of the article and I don't buy JFW's argument that it's not very scientific. Polling "all members of the Association of British Neurologists" is a pretty thorough study! It's especially important because it's the only study dealing with the subject of underreporting, so ignoring it is an example of editorial bias censoring the use of a study in a MEDRS. The results showed underreporting of 100%, which gives cause for concern. It proves we are dealing with an iceberg where we "know" what's above the water, but with a 100% underreporting rate the size of what's under the water has got to be much larger than imagined.
I haven't been following along, and I know that CSM likely means Cervical Spinal Manipulation, but what's MSM?
Ballard, an ND (a red flag) thinks Ernst is a woman?! He's right that a statement that "chiropractors are dangerous" is certainly a pretty wild statement. He's taking things a bit out of context. No one is saying that, but they are reacting to chiropractic's refusal to admit there is ANY danger. I know of chiropractors and leaders who consistently deny there have been any deaths. When the subject is broached they immediately do what Ballard is doing....change the subject and attack MDs. MDs have always admitted there are risks with their work. They use consent forms and drugs carry warnings. Chiropractors refuse to do that.
It's like Ballard's building a straw man that's easily shot down, and then compounds the problem by building a false dilemma case. There is no comparison between the types of conditions and risks involved with what MDs deal with all the time, and the insurance rates reflect that. Chiropractors are NOT dealing with life or death matters or emergency medicine, surgery, infections, drugs, etc.. They are so different that any comparison is ludicrous. It's like comparing someone who sits down looking at a PC screen and using it to run a program that sorts apples by size all day and someone who climbs into large sewage tanks and washes them out with strong chemicals all day. Who's at the greatest risk of serious injury? Chiropractors treat non-contagious, non-emergency aches and pains, even people who don't have any symptoms at all (subluxation-based chiros), while MDs deal with some pretty serious issues using methods and medicines that often have side effects. At least Ballard admits he's engaged in fear mongering.
Brangifer, I agree with all of your comments regarding the ND website editorial. However, I am confused about your stance on Ernst 2010. The association between CSM and VAD has already been established in the VAD article, so I dont understand what the 2010 Ernst article adds here? Under-reporting has also been identified by previous works and is already described in the VAD article, so I dont understand what the 2010 Ernst article adds in this regard. However, while the association AND under-reporting are included already, a discussion of the possibility for i) pre-existing dissections prior to seeking care, ii)temporal association doesnt equal causation, iii) Ernst is biased, are all left out of the VAD article. This is ok IMO because these issues do not undo the clear ASSOCIATION between VAD and CSM. However, there is also still no clear research that supports a causational link, so to empahize Ernst 2010 comments seems POV unless the discussion is about the controversy. Why open the VAD article to further discussion of CSM by including a controversial 2010 Ernst article that simply restates things already found in the VAD article? Sorry to bring this all up here when it is already in the VAD talk page and the FTN, but you seem reasonable, so I am curious what (if) I am missing here? Puhlaa (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
All I can find of mention of underreporting in the VAD article is the single word "undiagnosed". Are there other mentions? Note that the VAD article is built over the first three refs, all of which (including four others) are about cervical artery dissection, not VAD. That's just plain wrong! That means that there might be some OR and SYNTH going on.
Also I have never seen an article depend so heavily on one source. There are a couple big objections to using it: it's not about VAD at all; it's more about "anticoagulants to prevent ischemic stroke" than about strokes, etiology, epidemiology or other mechanisms. The subject is first and foremost "anticoagulants". (That doesn't help much when the patient is stroking right on the table with the chiropractor wringing their hands in the same room. That has happened.) It fails as a source in this article, but I'm not interested in getting in a shitfight between QG and JFW.
The Ernst study of ALL members of the Association of British Neurologists is not controversial, except to chiropractors (and JFW). I know of no mainstream, non-chiropractic sources that seriously question it. Likewise the "possibility for pre-existing dissections prior to seeking care" is pure undocumented guesswork and damage control by chiropractors trying to wriggle out of accepting that there might be a very small possibility of serious injury and strokes. Yes, some chiropractic leaders do admit it, but others deny any possibility. Even they are split on the matter.
Here's what it boils down to: (1) There is a very small risk, regardless of which profession does it (and I'm a PT); (2) When it happens it can easily be catastrophic; (3) There are safer methods to treat the same conditions; (4) Even with a small risk, it is never justifiable to use a method when it isn't absolutely necessary. This definitely applies to high cervical manipulation for LBP, allergies, suspected otitis media, dysmenorrhea, or any number of other conditions for which it is commonly used by Upper Cervical (UC) chiropractors. (The worst example I met was a mother whose neck was manipulated as treatment for her baby's crying. The reasoning was applied kinesiology's "surrogate" method. AK is a commonly used chiropractic method.) Pretty much all straight chiropractors, and many chiropractors, including non-UC chiros, use high cervical manipulation regardless of the patient's complaint, and they do it EVERY visit. That's inexcusable. PTs, DOs and MDs don't use it in that way.
No matter what, the three main sources and four others aren't about VAD, and underreporting is pretty much ignored. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
A second look reveals that a mention of under-reporting is not found in the VAD article. There may be room to add something to this regard. However, I am scared to give an inch...as you know how the saying goes! My experience here suggests that far more than a mile will be taken by some editors :)Puhlaa (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I only found one word... "undiagnosed". The sourcing is still a serious policy violation and to build an article that way is an invitation for an AfD. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
JFW considers an inch to be a mile, so he cuts it down to lip service on the talk page, and maybe two words in the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand, and agree some, with what you are saying. I am not familiar enough with policy to weigh in on the implications of the current sourcing used in the article. It seemed to be ok for good article status?
My problem with Ernst 2010 is not that he found 26 deaths, or that he reiterated a known association between stroke and cervical manipulation. My issue is with the conclusions he makes that are not justified with his methodology. For example, if you try to publish a "systematic review" of case reports of 20 people who have survived cancer using meditation and conclude: "Meditation is an effective cancer therapy" the you and the review would be ridiculed during peer-review. Why? Because there is severe selection bias and no control groups, thus nothing more than anecdote. The best conclusion you could make is: "Look, 20 people got better and also performed meditation". Similarly, if you submitted a review describing 20 cases of people that died after chemotherapy and concluded "chemotherapy causes death"....? Of course, a reviewer would ask, What about the cancer they had before they started chemotherapy? Ernst makes very bold and unjustified conclusions considering he only presents a list of anecdotes. Puhlaa (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the underreporting, not what you're talking about. Underreporting of 100% was documented. There were cases which these neurologists knew about but which hadn't been reported anywhere. That means there is a serious glitch in the system. With a system like that, one cannot trust the published statistics which didn't include all those cases that were unreported. That's pretty simple. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, I must disagree that "the possibility for pre-existing dissections prior to seeking care is pure undocumented guesswork and damage control". How do you explain the findings of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force (composed of DCs, MDs and PhDs)?
"Of specific concern are VBA strokes, which are extremely rare, but have been reported to be associated with chiropractic visits. However, the association between chiropractic visits (which frequently include cervical manipulation) and VBA stroke is similar to the association between physician visits and VBA stroke. This suggests that, on average, patients who seek chiropractic care for neck pain or headaches, and who then developed a VBA stroke may have actually been in the prodromal phase of a stroke when consulting the chiropractor; that is, the neck pain or headaches, which lead them to seek care were early symptoms of a VBA stroke." and "because this increased risk is also seen in those seeking health care from their primary care physician, this association is likely due to patients with headache and neck pain from VBA dissection seeking care before their stroke." Hurwitz EL, Carragee EJ, van der Velde G, Carroll LJ, Nordin M, Guzman J, Peloso PM, Holm LW, Côté P, Hogg-Johnson S, Cassidy JD, Haldeman S; Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders (2008). "Treatment of neck pain: noninvasive interventions: results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders". Spine. 33 (4suppl): S123-52. PMID18204386.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)Puhlaa (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Here is another interesting perspective...not a medical study (biomechanics) but still does not support the causational link:
"Stresses and strains on the vertebral artery during chiropractic spinal manipulation of the neck were always much smaller than those produced during passive range of motion testing and diagnostic procedures." Herzog W (2010). "The biomechanics of spinal manipulation". J Bodyw Mov Ther. 14 (3): 280–286. PMID20538226.
The task force had chiropractors in it and I'm sure they had quite a bit of influence. They are still extrapolating from some numbers. Other numbers show a 500% increased likelihood (2001 Ontario) of those under 45 suffering a stroke after visiting a chiropractor. The 2001 Ontario study "found that VBA patients under age 45 were five times more likely than controls to (a) have visited a chiropractor within a week of the VBA and (b) to have had three or more visits with neck manipulations. No relationship was found after age 45." There is an obvious discrepancy between the studies which should not be ignored. One cannot just throw one out and choose the one you favor, which seems to be what the chiropractors have done. No, a third study using even better methodology should be done. It hasn't.
I'm sure you don't want my opinion of Walter Herzog, but here it is. I remember him being bought and it concerned many. Before he was hired by the profession to do its research he put out good independent biomechanical research. After that he started putting out some junk science. After all, he was paid for it. His department at Calgary University was now beholden to the Canadian Chiropractic Research Foundation for the money and chiropractic research has a terrible reputation for not seeking the truth, but seeking to prove chiropractic right or to protect it. In this case there were lawsuits and the Canadian chiropractors desperately needed some research they could use to defend themselves. His research on cadaver necks isn't valid in my book. There's something wrong with it. I'm an expert at joint manipulation and I know that the possibility exists. What has actually happened with real people, people who have died in immediate connection with high cervical manipulation, is what really counts, but the profession uses his research on cadaver necks to claim it just can't happen. Well, since it DOES happen, then it CAN happen, screw his research. There's something wrong with it. He used to be independent and it's sad that this happened to him. I lost my respect for him several years ago. Before that one could trust his research. Now he has a vested interest in defending chiropractic, damn the real people who are thus endangered. 'nuff said. This is OR and can't be used here anyway. I get a bit worked up because during my career I have treated a number of patients who have been to chiropractors, gotten high cervical manipulation, and have immediately "been up and knocked on Heaven's door, but St. Peter sent them back". They survived, but just barely. Most recovered fully, but some had headaches or vertigo. That and the research made me change my approach toward how I used manipulation. I have had to put the safety of patient's first. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
With regard to the task force, I strongly agree that another study should be done, even a fourth and fifth, before we can say for sure either way. I assure you, I am aware of a multitude of studies under way examining this issue (I am involved with some). Only the best intentions are at heart, no one wants to hurt anyone, you cant honestly think DCs would pretend upper cervical manipulation was safe if they actually thought it was killing people? However, you bring up the (2001 Ontario) study, the task force article addressed this study. In fact, the results were identical between the 2001 Onntario and 2008 DC study! The 2008 study also found a 500% increased liklihood for stroke after a visit to a chiropractor. The difference is, the 2008 study also had a control group, they examined strokes after a visit to a GP and found the same 500% increase. Thus, the "stroke in progress when seeking care" arguement stems from the fact that visits to the GP (where no Cervical manipulation occurs) had the same increase in stroke risk as a visit to a DC (where as you stated, Cervical manipulation occurs almost every time). It seems a solid arguement to me, just needs replication and support from other studies of different design as well. Puhlaa (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I haven't compared those studies for some time and I'll take your word for it. That leaves the question of "why the difference". That's why more studies are needed. I don't think chiros who "know" there are injuries would dishonestly look the other way. No, they honestly believe the statistics they have been producing for years. Note that there is a difference between nearly all the previous research and more and more of the present day research produced by chiropractors. That scientific paradigm has been a relatively recent arrival, some chiros say from about the 1970s. Before that all research was on a pseudoscientific basis ("let's try to prove we're right"), and even since then there has been much of that, but it's getting to be less and less, with more and more quality research being produced. So, take heart, my opinion of chiropractic research and chiros is improving! I just have a long history of mistrust to readjust. Sometimes it still needs to be applied and other times not so. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I always like to hear opinions, especially from reasonable people, but I rarely take them as absolute truth as we are all inherently biased. The problem I have with your criticism of Herzog's resarch being funded by chiropractors is this...show me a pharmaceutical under stage 1,2, 3 or 4 research that is not being funded by the respective pharma company, yet this is acceptable. I trust pharma research because the morals of scientists and the peer-review process has to be trusted for the process of health care research to work. Research funded by an invested interest is not inherently biased, it just has to be critically appraised. Also, I believe that our opinion of the research outcomes does not necessarily invalidate the research. I am a student at CMCC, we adjust each others necks daily for 4 years, plus records of injuries have been kept for over 10 years, a stroke has never occurred (and we are still unskilled hacks at this stage). Further, my Dad and Uncle are chiros, and I have never been victim or witness to a stroke nor have I heard stories like yours from any of the MDs in the family (my Grandfather, Brother and Sister-in-law are all MDs). Thus, I come from the opposite perspective as you. My family has a long history of medical and chiro health care, I have witnessed thousands of cervical manipulations, recieved hundreds, and millions have been tracked at CMCC with no serious complications, so I struggle to accept that one person has been witness to many victims (although I will take your word for it, and consider your comments in my future research, application of chiropractic and discussions).Puhlaa (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I totally understand your point about bias. It can also exist in medical research and occasionally someone gets busted. Andrew Wakefield is a notable example, but in his case it's not bias or carelessness but willful fraud for big money. He even had a patent for a new vaccine in the wings. Once he destroyed the reputation of the MMR vaccine he was going to launch his vaccine. Nice scam! As to bias, I explained above why I have usually been suspicious of bias in chiropractic research, and there are good historical reasons for that attitude. Fortunately that is changing, thanks to people like you! As to our very different experiences it has to do with very different circumstances that apply both ways. If I were to injure someone and they didn't come back, I wouldn't know, but the chiropractor, MD or other PT they went to would know. There is also the problem of delay. An injury to the VA can occur without any symptoms, even up to a month afterwards and then "bang", a stroke. The MR scan will show the damaged VA. So there's usually no suspicion of a connection. That's why we cannot use the results of our own patients as a measure at all. Not at all! It's the underreporting problem. I observed those treated by others, and most came from one local chiro, who, like yourself, went to CMCC. Did I report them? No. I was part of the underreporting problem. I knew that if I reported it to their MD I risked getting attacked by that chiro who had lots of influence in town. I also knew that there would likely not happen anything with my report. It would just end up in the MD's files. Maybe that chiro wasn't very careful. Many complained he was too rough. The well-documented and common transient effects of cervical manipulation were too numerous with him. People often reported they would get dizzy, black out, or get nausea. Sometimes he'd keep them for an hour or two on a table in a side room before he'd let them leave. He should have driven them straight to the ER! The ones I mentioned were people who would have an alarming combination of those symptoms. They are usually considered signs of a torqued VA and we know that the situation is then ripe for a VAD-stroke. Quick action is required in case they get one, because if one waits and has to call an ambulance, it might not be fast enough. So our situations were very different. I didn't hear as many of those complaints from colleagues elsewhere, but still did occasionally. BTW, that chiro often used AK to diagnose. Note that my objection to high cervical manipulation is applied to ALL professions, not just to chiropractors. They just have a special responsibility because they still perform the majority of such manips. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
(I hope you don't mind me chiming in here) - I find it interesting that that chiropractor from CMCC used AK. From my understanding, chiropractors in Canada aren't allowed to use AK (I think BC regulations specifically mention the weird muscle testing they use), and CMCC has some fairly negative things to say about it. Puhlaa might be able to give more insight as to what the current environment at CMCC is like towards AK. DigitalC (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Not at all! I thoroughly enjoy your input. I don't know where this chiro learned AK, and it was also forbidden for him to do it in his clinic, but he did it frequently anyway. It was the chiropractic association in the country where he practiced that made that rule. They said that if a chiropractor performed AK, they must inform the patient that it was not standard chiropractic practice (in spite of it being a chiropractic technique...). This use of AK (especially frequent) reveals an unscientific mindset, which might also explain the frequency with which I encountered patients that had been injured by that chiro. I rarely encountered such from others. One gross example was the total rupture of the short head of a biceps (brachii muscle during an AK testing. The chiro pulled on the arm while it was flexed and the patient was supposed to resist. Well, it happened so fast and hard that the muscle simply ripped completely. The patient screamed and the arm went limp for a short time. A large bulge formed when the patient tried to flex the arm. The chiro was stunned and instead of sending the patient to the ER, he sent them home with no instructions or ice. One of the local MDs referred the patient to me. There was a large hematoma and massive discoloration down to the elbow, with some seepage further down. It wasn't a pretty sight! The patient said that the chiro said he didn't know what had happened, so the patient was still wondering. Unfortunately the MD hadn't examined the patient carefully, leaving it up to me to break the sorry news. It was one of the easiest diagnoses I have ever made. Hey, shit happens to everyone, but this chiro was working below the standard one expects for a professional, including chiropractors. Fortunately I knew better than to judge the whole profession by his example. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I can, and will give some insight. CMCC teaches only "diversified treatment technique" or, how to perform manual manipulations and mobilizations to all synovial joints of the body. We also learn soft-tissue therapies, rehabilitative exercises, modalities, clinical nutrition, etc. The school will not teach or advocate for any named chiropractic technique or for any diagnostic or treatment method that has no research behind it. They also do not teach 'subluxation science', and subluxations are not a valid diagnosis in our clinic. Thus, we do not learn to use thompson, activator, AK, SOT, NUCCA, HIO, etc, etc, etc, (although we do learn about them all in a theory class). However, once graduated, a chiropractor can learn and conform to any of a long list of (mostly BS) techniques that they choose, although specific rules are dependent on the province. For ex., DCs in Saskatchewan were not allowed to use activator until about 10 years ago. AK is certainly not restricted in Ontario, but again, it will depend on provice. I am currently wrapping up a survey-based study evaluating diagnostic and treatment techniques used by Canadian Chiros, while most use a standard diversified technique, there are about 20% that use a specific named technique for diagnosis and treatment, usually activator, thompson, AK, and chiropractic biophysics. Of interest, my survey also examined use of x-rays, vaccination attitudes, referrals to MDs, etc. I hope to produce 2 or 3 papers out of the survey and submit them for publication within the next couple months. I am always happy to answer any questions about chiropractic, CMCC, my personal attitudes, etc. Puhlaa (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
You're not hijacking it. I enjoy discussing this, especially with a science-based chiro like yourself. You are an asset to the profession, which desperately needs more like you to offset the influence of many others. You are one of a newer breed, and your background and education are superb, which makes me wonder why you got into chiropractic, considering its anti-science history, but things are changing as the older generation dies out. Unfortunately the largest school is still a straight school, Life U., and they are still pumping out subluxation-based, anti-science chiros. They are also the school with the largest share of government loan defaults, with the chiropractic profession the most of any profession. I think there are just too many being educated.
It looks like your education is very similar to PT. I look forward to the results of your research. This should be interesting. I remember the days when AK was forbidden in Saskatchewan, and when it was allowed again, which I saw as a step backwards. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Rangifer, I think that the PT and DC education is more similar than different these days. Interesting that you ask why I chose chiro, in fact, my Wife and I both shifted careers and started chiro school in 2008 (My wife already has a Masters and PhD in Neuroscience). We felt that there was something to offer the public, as far as conservative treatment of MSK, as well as room to make an impact on the profession both with research and policy. My wife wants to do nutrition/exercise/lifestyle counciling, so chiro seemed appropriate for her, and I am keen to leave a mark somewhere, and I thought chiro was primed and ready for some research and change. As for Life college....oh boy, it is horrible for me to say, but a high default rate for their students is not necessarily a bad thing for the profession as a whole. The results of my research certainly are interesting! Although the results are not as great as I hoped, it is certainly apparent that the loud voice of pseudoscience represents a minority of the profession in Canada (20-30% depending on the specific topic). I would bet that it is worse in the US. Anyways, I also enjoy discussing the topic! Note, at my user space User:Puhlaa/notes is a proposal to the lead of chiroractic article, feel free to look, comment, make changes, etc. if you feel inclined. Regards. Puhlaa (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's much worse in the USA. The profession is relatively young and the majority of influential chiropractors are of the old school, but they are retiring. The ones from Life and many other schools don't always last very long. Some estimate that 50% of chiropractors are out of the profession by five years. There are just too many educated and too many hindrances and degrading things they are required to do in their first jobs working for experienced chiros who exploit them. In Canada one sees a more modern and scientific approach, with the JCCA publishing things that would never get published below the border. Unfortunately one excellent article by Ron Carter, the ex-president of the CCA, has disappeared from the journal. It used to be accessible, but it was very critical and I suspect it's being hidden. If one searches for his name one can read the often critical responses, but I can't find the article itself anymore. I'd sure like to see them not use censorship. You should read it and then read the responses on the JCCA website. Fortunately PubMed has it: Subluxation - The Silent Killer - Ronald Carter, DC, MA, Past President, Canadian Chiropractic Association. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The article by Ron Carter to which you refer was required reading as part of our research methods class :) It certainly hit some nerves among a couple classmates who were indoctrinated by chiro relatives prior to attending chiro college. However, it is not censored by JCCA, see this link: http://www.jcca-online.org/IssueIndex/Issue.aspx?IssueID=519Puhlaa (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Ohhhh, I see what you mean! I will mention it to some faculty at CMCC on Monday who are friends with Dr. Gotlib (editor of JCCA) and see what is up. Thanks Puhlaa (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I could not wait till Monday :) I email Dr. Gotlib myself inquiring as to why I could not access full text. I will let you know what he replies if you are interested. Depending on the answer, I will still bring it up with a few DC,PhD faculty I know well at CMCC tomorrow and see what they think about it.Puhlaa (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
It used to be available and then it disappeared. I have emailed JCCA several times and gotten no response. It looks like censorship or revisionism. That may not be the case, but it "appears" so. The JCCA has usually been an open forum for all views. It would be great if you can get it restored and I'd like to know his response. You can email me. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
BR, you reverted back to a longstanding version, but the more recent vandalism-free one was actually by User:Jmh649. Will you take a look to see if you meant to undo both the vandalism and that edit. Thanks, Ocaasi (talk) 08:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I think I did it right. Jmh649 didn't simply revert the vandalism, but replaced it with a shortened version of what was previously there. I restored it back to its original state. Was there some discussion which arrived at a consensus for his shorter version?
Shortened:
The risk of harm from manipulations of the neck may outweigh the benefits."
Longstanding:
"A systematic review determined that the risk of death from manipulations to the neck by far outweighs the benefits."
Actual summary:
"Numerous deaths have occurred after chiropractic manipulations. The risks of this treatment by far outweigh its benefit."[10]
While both the shortened and longstanding versions are true, the longstanding version is what the source indicates because it's about death, so I followed the source. The shortened version, although true, wouldn't be justified by the ref. If there's anything good about the shortened version, it's the use of "harm", rather than "death". "Harm" includes the far more frequent injuries, since death is more rare. Of course the "extreme level of underreporting obviously renders estimates nonsensical." (Ernst).
I could certainly go along with using the actual summary, placing it in quotes. The ref justifies it. Shall we do that?
It means substantially the same as the shortened version, and the use of death is a redflag to chiropractors, most of whom would strongly disagree since they aren't the ones who see the worst cases, since the injury usually becomes evident after the patient has left the chiropractor's office. The chiropractor actually has the impression that they gave a good treatment, while the patient actually didn't come back because they later died or were injured and weren't about to go back. They end up going to other practitioners who discover that they had been injured. (Further up I discuss this with a chiropractic editor. Look at the end of this section.)
I saw your conversation with Puhlaa and enjoyed it. I can't comment on the accuracy of the post-manipulation events, because, well, I like you BR, but NOR ;p . How do we scientifically know that incidence rates are correlated to the treatment if they're not more closely connected temporally. And even if they are temporally related, we still haven't resolved the Spine 2008 finding about underlying conditions leading to people with artery problems seeking Chiropractic treatment. So I think we're giving the wrong impression--but then, I have a different impression than you! I do think there's some benefit from quotes... it connects the claim more directly to Ernst, as opposed to the consensus of the entire medical establishment. If you think I'm wrong there, maybe the old version is a better fit, or there is a way to say it differently entirely. Ocaasi (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I personally favor the short quote by Ernst from the summary mentioned above. We're on safe ground by doing that, especially if we attribute it to him. (And I don't give a flying f#$@ what QG says about it!)
Yes, OR isn't allowed in articles, but here we're safe The events are often closely associated temporally, but not enough that the perpetrator knows about it, but occasionally they do. It's the patient's history and nowadays MRI findings that can confirm that a trauma has occurred and when it likely occurred. Blood clots can occur without trauma, so I'm talking about traumatic dissection, IOW literally damage to the artery walls or even severing. A dramatic instance resulting in a patient immediately going into seizures and then a coma, with death a couple days later, occurred in a Canadian chiropractor's office. Family members of 20-year-old Laurie Jean Mathiason were in the room and witnessed the occurrence, and their description, which was posted as a streaming file, was so chilling I got goosebumps and nearly vomited(!), and I'm a medical professional who has witnessed deaths several times. Laurie started convulsing and then her head started turning blue from the top down. These are rare occurrences, but they can and do happen. Sharon Stone nearly died after chiropractic adjustments worsened a riding injury, a fact that not many people know. The point of informed consent and choice of safer methods is to lessen risk. When those who perform the most neck manipulations are in denial, patients aren't as safe as they should be. We are prepared to accept a certain amount of risk if we are properly informed, but otherwise not. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I get a mixed reading from that Daily Beast article. On the one hand, Chiropractic is clearly identified as a trigger, if you will, for VAD. On the other hand, so is...rough sex, spin biking, weight-lifting, and yoga. So what exactly is the message? The treatment you're about to receive could trigger an extremely rare event that could kill you, but so could six other things you do today? Seriously, how do we know that Chiropractic is the dominant trigger rather than just shitty arteries that would have torn from turning around too quickly? Again, i'm being counter-skeptical here, and I see grounds for you being precautionarily skeptical at least, but is the issue that Chiropractic is really risky, or just that it has extremely small (but real risk) compared to no prove benefit from cervical manipulation?
Terrifying and saddening anecdotes - but unfortunately they have the drawbacks of anecdotal evidence. I used to see a chiropractor when I was in Uni. He was telling me about how he had a patient who had a seizure in the treatment room on an initial visit. This patient had never had a seizure before in his life, but had one on the day he visited the chiropractor. That is a strong temporal link. However, he had his seizure before the chiropractor had treated him (if i recall correctly he hadn't even examined the patient yet). If the patient had had the stroke half an hour later, it certainly would look bad for the chiropractor. DigitalC (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Temporal association isn't enough, although it's usually considered a hint, and I'm very well aware of all that. The Mathiason case I mention above had autopsy evidence to back up the sequence of events, so it doesn't have the drawbacks of my own experiences where patients informed me of what happened and their symptoms. They could feel it happen. At best I could have developed them, with evidence, into case studies. Without that they're just anecdotes, but that's what happened. It still gives one food for thought. Fortunately there are enough other cases where there is good solid evidence that cervical manipulation has torn vertebral, and occasionally carotid, arteries, so the possibility does exist however rarely it happens, which is something we don't really know because of massive underreporting. BTW, nice to hear from you. I haven't seen you around for awhile. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
My life has gotten too busy for steady contributions to WP - fortunately or unfortunately ;). I still try to check in from time to time, but it makes it hard to follow what is going on sometimes. DigitalC (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm also skeptical of the usefulness of risk disclosures. Not for ethical reasons, but because they tend to be brushed off as mere liability speak. If chiropractors have to give warnings, they will be written by a lawyer and look like every other unreadable contract. Somewhere in there on line 156 will be, "there is a risk of vertebral artery dissection leading to stroke or death", and no one will read it or no what it meant or have an intelligent reason to avoid the treatment anyway. Ocaasi (talk) 06:29, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
I only provided the dailybeast link to document the Mathiason incident. You ask: "is the issue that Chiropractic is really risky, or just that it has extremely small (but real risk) compared to no prove benefit from cervical manipulation?" It's the second. There isn't a huge risk of injury with most chiropractors, or from spinal manipulation. The risk of stroke is "likely" very small, but of unknown extent because of underreporting. Since there are other safer methods, why do it? Since most of it is for conditions for which it isn't indicated, well, that's inexcusable. Of course a straight chiropractor will say it is always indicated for all conditions, even in the absence of symptoms, and there are still lots of straight chiropractors, including being currently educated from straight schools, including the largest school, Life University in Marietta, Georgia. It's basically an unacceptable risk when it's usually an unnecessary treatment, and if one feels it's necesary, then use a safer method.
I understand your reasoning about disclosure, but it should be a legal requirement, just as it is for many medical procedures and drugs, many of which also have a very low risk. Why should chiropractors be exempt? Physical therapists have self-imposed this on their own profession. It's the responsible thing to do. It's simply an ethical matter. Most chiropractic patients do not know there is such a risk, while most medical patients know there is a risk with medical procedures and drugs. Let's level the playing field. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
puhlaa chimes in
Ocaasi, I agree with you 100% regarding the questions over causality. The bottom line right now is that there has clearly been a tempral link established between stroke and cervical manipulation but we still have no better evidence for causation than against causation. There are a couple cases where a stroke has occurred on the treatment table, but Brangifer summed the problem with this arguement nicely in the talk page for vaccine controversy, that is "It's just that these activists constantly fall into the correlation=causation trap mentioned above and try to convince people that the rare exception is the rule" Thus, the bottom line, as I said, is that the scientific literature currently states a correlation, but only critics like Ernst have made bold statements of causation at this point. We need more evidence before crucifying any practitioners.
As far as the Chiro lead goes, I am still uncertain how Ernst 2010 is justified to be there. See WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Right now Ernst 2010 bold conclusion concludes the lead, but does not acuurately summarize the discussion of safety in the article. The article (in safety) discusses the controversy regarding temporal association, deaths, lack of evidence for causation, and evidence for a stroke-prodrome causing a patient to visit a DC making the association stronger. Thus, both sides of the scientific debate are discussed in the article, with the conclusion that we dont know yet. However, the lead says "the risks outweigh the benefits". This does not summarize the body, nor highlight the controversy as is outlined in LEAD. It seems to me that this sentence MUST be attributed to Ernst, as he is the only one who feels bold enough to make such statements based on the current evidence. Further, it might be that an additional sentence highlighting the controversy must be added so that the lead conforms to LEAD.
Lastly, Brangifer, I agree that C-manipulation should only be used when indicated, and mobilization can often replace indicated manipulation. Regarding disclosure, the CCPA provides a consent form for DCs that includes a 1 paragraph discussion regarding the stroke risk. In the clinic at CMCC we cannot treat anyone without having them read and sign the form, and must give the patient an opportunity to ask about and discuss this form and the risk (full informed consent). Puhlaa (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
As you both have likely noticed, I don't participate as much at the chiropractic article as I usually have done because of QG's presence. It's just too fruitless dealing with his stonewalling and other tactics/methodologies. Hence I haven't had much to say about this. Here's my current position:
1. I support use of the short quote by Ernst from the abstract. It's milder than our current version. We're on safe ground by doing that, especially if we attribute it to him. Here's a suggested wording:
Speaking of neck manipulation, Edzard Ernst concluded his review of the literature on deaths from chiropractic by saying: "The risks of this treatment by far outweigh its benefit."[1]
2. I support balancing it with a statement that summarizes chiropractic objections.
3. I also support removing the statement and leaving a summary of the safety section stating that "There is controversy over the risk of neck manipulation."[Ernst ref] [other ref]
4. I also support just removing the Ernst statement (but not the ref) from the lead. That's the simplest solution. If that is done, the ref should remain and be attached to the previous sentence.
Here's something from 2007 for your consideration. Read it at the original JRSM source and the accompanying refs:
"Case-control and other studies confirm that upper spinal manipulation is associated with risks44-47 and that spinal manipulation is an independent risk factor for vertebral artery dissection.46 Many chiropractors insist that a causal link is questionable or unlikely, as the early signs of arterial dissections include neck pain, which could be the reason for a patient to consult a chiropractor, therefore these possible associations could be false.23,51 Smith et al. tried to account for this particular confounder and still found spinal manipulation to be a risk factor.46" JRSM
I'll let you guys do with this what you wish. If it looks like there is some chance my input will help, you can let me know and I might participate, but if JFW and QG are just going to oppose, I might not bother. They're both very stubborn. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Brangifer: As always, your input is appreciated! Until there is more research regarding causation I would be satisfied with any of your suggestions, they are all more consistent with NPOV and LEAD then the current version. I am also willing to undergo the hassle with QG in order to try and improve the article. I will consider the situation, and this weekend I will make a (bold) change to the chiropractic article based on your suggestions and simultaneously explain it in Talk:chiropractic. I would ask that when the inevitable debate begins with QG that you would add your opinion on the talk page at least once so that other editors can weigh the perspective of more than just QG and I before 'taking a side'. Is that reasonable? Best regards. Puhlaa (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I also support this very much. It's ridiculous that good editors are being driven away from that page. I suggest we bring in cavalry, from all sides, perhaps JfDwolff and WhatamIdoing and Rexxs, who has a careful scientific viewpoint but/and has been in agreement with QG about policy necessitating we include Ernst as is. I think there's room for consensus here, but it will involve a few more needed opinions. Puhlaa, I might suggest drafting the alternative first, since bold changes will almost definitely be reverted. Please make the draft a good one and be ready for a variety of objections. I'll give you an idea what they will be:
Lead should summarize the body -> At worst this means we just need to fix the body first and then edit the lead to match
Lead should summarize the body -> this will be stated with the implicit assumption that the old version did summarize the body. But if it overly presented one aspect or ignored others, then the changes are in fact an improvement or correction
WP:V means we must use Ernst's words precisely-> Fair enough but this doesn't mean we can't use a quotation or give attribution.
V means we don't judge the sources ourselves -> V requries we deal with sources in context and editorial discretion is written all over NPOV in terms of determining significance. As Ludwigs has said, V is a doctrine for exclusion (merely a minimum threshold) whereas NPOV dictates how we phrase issues to describe all sides fairly. I think even MEDRS requires we look at what types of studies were conducted and what they measured to determine whether claims are appropriate for a given article.
WP:ASF prohibits using attribution where the is no dispute among reliable sources -> A few things here: one, ASF is no longer in NPOV, it was moved to WP:ASSERT. The language is similar but slightly less definitive. More importantly, there is a dispute among reliable sources regarding the severity, scope, and causality between CSM and VAD/stroke/death. The argument will be made that Ernst 2010 is the only source which performed a 'risk-benefit' analysis, so it is incontested. (In the past that has been counter-argued by pointing out that the risk-benefit determination was not integral to the study but was rather a risk assessment performed by its author, when the study was primarily about the number of deaths. To use our language, Ernst merely synthesized the evidence of some serious risk against the lack of proven benefits and made a simple calculation. This analysis has been called OR, but it's also, a fair appraisal of the source). So perhaps Ernst must stand on its own here, but the rest of the context regarding this debate, namely what has been discussed at Vertebral Artery Dissection is extremely relevant, as is the response of Chiropractors, which must be described per NPOV.
Rebuttals from Chiropractors are WP:Fringe and don't get equal Weight -> Fringe is a relative term, as is weight, and in this context the views of practitioners themselves must at least be described, even if not given particular authority. It's not a Weight/MEDRS problem to mention the response to medical conclusions which have catalyzed the entire field as well as any surrounding medical uncertainty; it's a Weight issue not to.
Ernst is MEDRS systematic review -> This is true but so are other sources which address the issue, such as Spine 2008, Neurology, JMPT, Herzog, etc. If we are not adding their contributions then we are missing a piece of WP:Weight.
So I'll summarize: The claim: MEDRS + V + Weight + ASF + FRINGE = Ernst, and only Ernst, without attribution
The response: MEDRS applies to all high quality sources, not only Ernst. NPOV requires we describe all significant aspects of the field, fairly, and proportionately. Weight requires that we include the Chiropractic response as well as other systematic studies which address the issue. Systematic reviews are preferred but not to the exclusion of all other studies. Not all systematic reviews are equal, and Ernst is less than ideal. Attribution is useful in situations where a statement of plain fact would oversimplify the underlying reality, giving the impression that everyone agrees with what may in fact be controversial or partially unresolved. V requires we have sources, not that we use them exactly and always no matter what the situation. How we use sources depends on context.
The general thrust is that the article is not currently NPOV, because we are asserting a simple, resolved fact that which is in reality quite unsettled by research and controversial otherwise. Yet there's no sense of this controversy in the article. No sense Chiropractors disagree. No sense researchers aren't sure of the size of the connection, etc.
I recommend that if we cannot bring a variety of editors to support a broad and neutral summary of the situation that we move quickly to an WP:RFC. It doesn't make sense to waste time getting into repetitive arguments when we are going to resolve it only with outside views anyway. Brangifer, I hope this doesn't seem like I'm taking advantage of a shared difficulty with an editor to push an agenda. I want to see all of the research and controversy described the way I have read it. I don't just want to whitewash the article. Ocaasi (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Lots of good thoughts but I can't respond now. Would you mind numbering your points to ease discussion of each one, possibly copying your sig to each point so it's clear what's going on? Just a suggestion. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I have framed the issue in a concise way (I think), it can be found on my user page User:Puhlaa/notes. This is what I will post on talk:chiropractic and at an RFC if/when it comes to that. Any suggestions to improve it are welcome. A specific proposal for changes to make the lead NPOV is a dificult task without violating OR. I am somewhat stuck here, but from what Brangifer has suggested I am currently leaning towards one of two possibilities to deal with this issue until better research is available. I have posted these at User:Puhlaa/notes as well, as Brangifer may not want his talk page hijacked any longer :)Puhlaa (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about the missing sigs. I deactivated sign-bot so I could work on my talk page, refactor comments, etc. Guess I forgot to sign a few times. Thanks for filling them in. Ocaasi (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
This warning is because of your inflammatory comments at [11] and [12]. It is unacceptable to describe others as "Pushers of fringe POV", "the fringe gang", "come crying here like a little brother", or "gang of fringe POV pushers whose (witless) mission ...". We are expected to resolve our disagreements collegially, without incivility and personal attacks. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia in this manner, you may be subject to sanctions. Sandstein 08:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
A warning for incivility for the way I described what was actually happening would be in order, but under normal warning conditions, not under AE sanctions. That would be a cheapening of the process and misuse of the sanctions, especially since I wasn't editing in those articles or the essay (meaning the AE sanctions don't apply to me), so you're welcome to take the high road and issue such a warning as a replacement for the one above. Regardless of what happens, I'll take it to heart.
While I provided the flavor and feeling of what was happening accurately, as attested by Stephan Schulz, the others who did it more civilly and technically were T. Canens, WMC, MastCell, BorisG, ScottyBerg, SBHB and Stephan Schulz - which is a clear majority against your decision. We would have preferred a shorter punishment. We're talking about incivility in defense of Wikipedia, not the subterfuge of the project which he was working against. There's a world of difference.
What had been happening to JPS previous to the AR/E was so unfair. We watched them succeed with their subterfuge and baiting, thus causing him to react, and that was so wrong. It was like forcing an alcoholic to drink, and then punishing the alcoholic rather than those who got him into trouble. They knew that he has a weakness in that area and kept after him, and especially ZuluPapa5 hounded him and baited him on his own talk page. I have a hightened sense of justice and a need to defend the downtrodden and felt JPS needed to be defended a bit and did it a bit too informally. Take my motives into account, just as JPS's motives need to be counted. The other side of the story needed to be told. Yes, it's still wrong of me and JPS to be incivil, I just felt, like the others, that a year is too long. Whatever. I've learned that justice doesn't reside here.
Anyway, I would welcome an ordinary civility warning. It's always good to be reminded of that and I thank you for it. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your understanding. I am of the opinion that the arbitration sanctions warning is applicable here because an AE request related to pseudoscience is a "page broadly related to pseudoscience". In addition, you have recently edited pseudoscience-related pages like Chiropractic, Chemtrail conspiracy theory, Homeopathy and Applied kinesiology (where at [13] you referred to pseudoscience in the edit summary). You are therefore subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy mentioned above.
I do not think that the repeatedly heard argument "we're the good guys because we're defending Wikipedia from pseudoscience" is helpful. It hurts your cause because the arbitration process does not accept it. As a personal philosophical matter, I happen to agree that Wikipedia should broadly reflect the approach of mainstream academic science to irrational and fringe issues, because this is normally the approach most consistent with WP:V and WP:NPOV. But that is a content issue. Arbitration addresses conduct. And no matter how meritorious or silly your content position may be, you are expected to adhere to exactly the same rules of etiquette as everybody else.
In adition, each person's conduct is generally evaluated on its own merits. If you are baited or provoked, you should not expected to be treated more leniently if you explode as a result. Instead you should react calmly and politely, and the provocations will stop because they do not work. Two wrongs do not make a right. If there has been sanctionable conduct by others, that can be examined in a separate AE request, but does not excuse Joshua P. Schroeder's own misconduct. Sandstein 11:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
We basically agree on all points except the application of AE sanctions to ordinary incivility. Whatever. It still feels unfair that JPS got punished while those who goaded him didn't. Apparently two have gotten warnings, but no other sanctions. They should at least get some form of topic ban and JPS should get a reduced sentence per the clear majority of commentators. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
An alternative reality
Wow. I've seen complaints about Sandstein, but only now do I see why: "If you are baited or provoked, you should not expected to be treated more leniently if you explode as a result. Instead you should react calmly and politely, and the provocations will stop because they do not work. Two wrongs do not make a right."
Here in the real world, when people are baited and provoked to their breaking point, civility is not an expected response. However, I think it is realistic to expect editors to recognize when they've reacted improperly to provocation, and to work to de-escalate any problems that resulted. Simply disengaging goes a long way.
LOL! Yes, one can keep on turning and going in circles. In the real world where justice is supposed to apply, a judge is supposed to judge based on all factors, including extenuating and aggravating circumstances. It won't change a guilty verdict to a not guilty verdict, but it will affect the punishment applied. If a person has been goaded, baited and provoked, as in this case, then that results in a reduced sentence. Yes, two wrongs do not make a right, but they do result in one party being judged less harshly because their actions are then seen as more understandable, IOW they were provoked by another guilty party. In this case we have a hasty judgment with an overly long sentence (a whole year) that goes against a clear majority of the commentators' wishes. Most feel this is an unfairly long sentence.
I hope that Sandstein will take the high road, show some class, and reduce the sentence. That will redeem his reputation. Otherwise his reputation gets damaged and the whole affair leaves a bad taste in one's mouth that reflects poorly on Sandstein. That would be too bad since our reputation is our biggest asset here. Number of years, number of edits, it all rates less than reputation. A proper result should reflect poorly on JPS, but that's not the end result now. He appears more like a victim because of an overly harsh judgment. Whenever someone is treated unfairly, a perpetrator is made into a victim. That is so wrong. The end result should make them appear as guilty as they really are, and JPS did do something wrong, but that fact gets lost now. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I was editing from my iPhone last night and must have accidentally nicked the rollback link on your edits. Sorry about that. However, I do wonder why you prefer to use colons for indenting in an unordered list as opposed to simply more asterisks? Also, if what you are saying about the proper casing of Innate intelligence is true, that article should be renamed, right? –CWenger (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Have you ever seen a thread where people use multiple asterisks for indentation? It can make a very weird format. The way to always avoid it is to use colons with only one asterisk. That works every time, regardless of line spacing. As you'll see below, line spacing makes a difference, but it shouldn't. Look at it in editing mode too:
This should produce four indents, but it doesn't:
three colons and one asterisk produces five
four asterisks produces four
When placed with no blank lines it works fine:
one asterisk
two of them
three of them
four of them
When they have blank lines above or below one gets this:
two of them
three of them
The weird format occurs if there is a blank line above or below one of the lines, whereas using colons always works. It should be possible to place blank lines wherever one wishes, and it makes editing much easier because one can easily see where one paragraph or comment starts and ends when in editing mode. While an asterisk will function as an indent, it's really only intended to work to make the bullet, whereas colons make indents. It's just one of those small invisible formatting changes I occasionally make. Another one which aids editing is using the wiki software default spacing, which automatically places spaces before and after the equals signs in a heading and a blank line after the heading before the text starts. If one writes from scratch without doing it, it looks the same when reading a page. If one uses the "new section" tab, it will use the default spacing. Try it and then look at it in editing mode. When everything is written without any blank lines in a long article, it makes it harder to notice where the headings are located when in editing mode, especially for people whose eyes aren't what they used to be.
Yes, technically the article should be renamed but no one's ever bothered. The words are capitalized within the article. Rarely one sees a chiropractor who might not capitalize, and they definitely aren't straight chiros. Non-chiros nearly always fail to do it because they don't realize they are dealing with religious terminology, not an ordinary use of words. It's a straight chiropractic term and for them to not capitalize would amount to near blasphemy, sort of like writing "god" rather than "God". D. D. Palmer and his son B. J. Palmer were both eccentrics and megalomaniacs with some odd ideas. Both were relatively uneducated and developed their own ways of spelling words ("thot" for "thought" is one example) and they created certain esoteric expressions where the capitalization meant something to them. Universal Intelligence (that title is capitalized properly, as should the others), Innate Intelligence, and Educated Intelligence are all related terms. The first refers to what some would call God, but with DD Palmer it was a pantheistic version of god, who then was inborn (innate) in us. He didn't believe in the personal creator God of the Abrahamic religions, but even he wasn't consistent with his capitalization of God. His lack of education was often evident in his writings. Palmer claims to have gotten the basic ideas of chiropractic in spiritistic seances. That partially explains why the profession is riddled with metaphysical and pseudoscientific ideas. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
just a side note
I have to say (though I suspect we still strongly disagree on some things), that you are officially back in my 'good' books. I'm feeling confident I can trust you to be reasonable, and since I ask nothing else from people on Wikipedia, that is (I hope you realize) fairly high praise. That doesn't mean I'm always going to be nice to you, mind you (what fun would that be? ), but as far as I'm concerned you've earned the benefit of the doubt, and I won't forget that.
Thanks. I very much agree. It is much more pleasant to seek agreement when possible than to seek any excuse not to do so. There are far too many of those "opportunites", but what is life worth if that's all we use our time on? If we just AGF, most things work out better. I'm sure we agree on far more than either of us realizes. Take care and good luck. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Kapi'olani
You're right. I think the sequence of events is pretty clear here → here → here, and I was (I would like to think uncharacteristically) sloppy in my due diligence when trying to conform the two articles. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
A very interesting sequence of events. Now I understand the whole reasoning behind the "home" thing. It didn't come out of thin air, but using a contemporary source was probably best. The place may have gone through a number of name changes through the years. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll explain it for you, since chronology is important here:
Here you falsely accuse JPS of "push[ing] in a "pseudoscientific POV",..." He is a well-known opposer of those who do such things. In what way was that a "peacefully productive" thing for you to say to him since he obviously opposes such things? You were actually accusing him of doing it! I call that "attacking and baiting". You had it turned around.
Here, in the first paragraph, I'm referring to the previous incident shortly before on his talk page. I can see now that I should have included a link to make it clear that you had been baiting him on his talk page. The next paragraph just provides some advice about how to deal with fringe subjects. Note that all along I agree with you that sourcing is important. It wasn't wrong for you to ask for sources. That's why I said you should "do the first" (ask for sources) "without doing the second" (attacking and baiting JPS).
As to your heading above and your "peacefully productive" phrase, I'm not sure what you mean, unless you're trying to set up a straw man and bait me too. You had been unpeacefully and unproductively attacking and baiting JPS. I saw it and called you on it. Does that clear it up for you? -- Brangifer (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Meridians are not real?
I recall some editor making a subsection on a talk page "meridians are not real". Ludwigs2 wants to delete the acupuncture lede first paragraph sentence about "inconsistent with human anatomy", but WP:civil notified me of this intention, and put a "citation needed" tag on the sentence for a few days of time to find RS. Was it you who did the "meridians are not real" subsection somewhere? If so, can you put the RS on the appropriate lede first paragraph, or let me know what the RS is and I will do it? Thanks. HkFnsNGA (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I was just wondering if it was you, or another editor, who wrote the "meridians are not real" material. The first paragraph of the acupuncture article has the citation needed tag put in by Ludwigs2 [16]. I don't disagree with the tag, but I don't want to chase down RS for this if you (or another editor) already have it. Diffs for the sum total of my edits on the article are here[17], with Ludwigs2 inserting a citation needed tag for the words "inconsistent with the sciences of human anatomy and human physiology", particularly the word "inconsistent". HkFnsNGA (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I found a couple of refs for inconsistent with anatomy. If you happne to have more plese let me know, but otherwise you can ignore my comments above. Thanks. HkFnsNGA (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
What confuses me above is that I don't find the cn tag or any recent edit made by Ludwigs2. Your diff doesn't work. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I CNed that, though I may have removed some statement to that effect. At any rate, my concern is not over whether meridians are 'real', but over whether the term real has any actual meaning in that context. meridians are a rubric based on the particular theoretical conception that chinese medicine uses. the best you can ask is whether the concept is at all functional; using the term 'real' is misleading and inappropriate. Classic misdirection, used in nihilistic politics all the time: assert that concepts like 'honor' and 'virtue' must be 'real' to be meaningful, assert that they are not 'real', then rush off happily to rape and pillage to your heart's content. We cannot pillage the TCM article by insisting on the necessary reality of a concept that TCM doesn't itself insist is 'real'. --Ludwigs219:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Try AGF. I'm not devious. By "real" I mean a verifiable histological/anatomical feature. Sure meridians and acupuncture points are real "concepts" and beliefs, just like "ghosts", but that's it. That's what Mann is talking about. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
No bad faith intended, I was just playing around with the 'rape and pillage' imagery. it's been that kind of day. {{=)}
However, you do have to note that "verifiable histological/anatomical feature" Is a phrase that only makes sense when you start from a western 'replaceable parts' viewpoint. Chinese medicine never worked from the perspective of anatomical reductionism (mostly because they didn't have the technology to do it effectively); they worked from a holisitc 'bodily functions' perspective. If you want to appreciate TCM for what it is there's no sense trying to reduce it to an alien model for analysis, even if the aline model is a better model. that smacks of teleological reasoning. --Ludwigs222:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Understood. I have days like that too. I also agree that to really "understand" acupuncture we should look at it from their (ancient) perspective. For our purposes here, we are also forced to look at it from a modern perspective, just like our sources do. We aren't allowed to write articles from an in-house perspective, although some of the content may present that perspective. The biomedical claims are still sourced using MEDRS sources, the claims are judged by FRINGE, PSI or other policies and guidelines, etc.. We just have to cover the subject from all significant angles, including how it is viewed and measured by modern science. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
This discussion really belongs on the talk:acupuncture. Many of the statements being quoted are in sources we would not normally accept as wp:MEDRS, e.g. decades-old editorial commentaries. Dated criticisms of acupuncture as panacea should not be taken as complete current dismissal of its utility in pain management, which is the modern focus of its continued use. I've cleaned up some of the most egregious cites, but there are many more to be fixed. LeadSongDogcome howl!22:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I only put it on this page because I thought I remembered Brangifer was the one who put "meridians are not real" on a talk page, but I could not remember which page.
On that page, having read the comparison of acupuncture meridians being no more "real" than the Greenwich Meridian, I responded that I am lucky I did not learn the Greenwich Meridian was not real before, because I read a sign once that I was standing on it, and if I found out it was not real, I might have fallen off. HkFnsNGA (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
LeadSongDog, I understand your point, but be careful not to misuse WP:MEDRS by raising the bar for all sources used. MEDRS only applies to the nitty gritty details of biomedical fact, not to history, opinions or controversies, which are all only governed by RS. (Note the third paragraph of the MEDRS lead.) Our medical articles aren't medical textbooks and must include all types of information. I'm not sure if you're referring to Mann's statements, but they are very significant considering his position in acupuncture. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Time sink editors
Sometimes there are editors who rarely do anything constructive to aid Wikipedia's functioning or make any constructive article edits here, yet they are involved in all kinds of articles, discussions, attempts at policy changes, etc.. The majority of their activities involve very unconstructive edits, reverting and getting reverted, complaints, obstruction, stonewalling, endless circular arguments, ownership behavior, baiting, refusal to uncollaborate, refusal to respond constructively to reasonable communication, and generally create controversy. Sometimes this happens without directly violating any rules like NPA, but they often fail to AGF and are definitely disruptive. Sometimes they are so lacking in competence, maturity, cognitive abilities or language skills that they are a burden here. They serve as huge time sinks and need to be weeded out because they are just in the way and keeping normally productive editors from doing constructive things. Topic bans or outright blocking may be necessary. Brangifer (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
How do I add tool to monobook?
How do I "add a tool to (my) monobook that immediately provides lots of information when (I) let (my) mouse pointer hover over a link.... (to) immediately (tell) me about Cyclopia"? Thanks once again. PPdd (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
If you'll go to my monobook page, you can just copy all that code to your monobook page. You can make such a page by copying the format of my link. I'm not sure which one of those scripts is the one, but you'll at least get it when you do that. Let me know what happens. You will also probably need to clear your cache before it will work. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I created a PPdd:monobook.js page and copied yours into it. I cleared the cache by saving my talk page and user pages without making changes. But nothing happens yet when I put the cursor over a link to your name. PPdd (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Ocassi! Now isn't that a cool tool? It's pretty handy. You can also look at an article history, a page of user contributions, or your watchlist. Just hold it over any diff and it will show you the first part of the diff. It's a very good time saving tool. I don't know if it's my browser or slow download time, but I often have to hold it over a diff, move the pointer away, and then go back, before it will show the whole thing. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
chemtrails page
hi there, the images on the chemtrail page need to remain NPOV, and a claim as to the nature of the trails/lines made only when the image comes from a RS - like the 3rd image on the page which comes from NOAA, with the claim coming from NOAA that it is indeed a contrail. thanks. 174.74.68.103 (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
It's NPOV to label them as contrails, just as it's NPOV to label it all a conspiracy theory. If the existence of chemtrails is ever proven all that will be changed, including titles of articles. See the talk page of the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Please ignore any IP's trying to edit this page to add info other than myself, who had the article as what it was before restructuring. The others blunder in and think they know what they are doing 84.92.140.217 (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but I can't do that. They have just as much right to edit here as anyone else. Your statements here and elsewhere indicate you need to read WP:OWN. Also NEVER refer to another editor in an edit or edit summary by their real name. That's considred WP:OUTING, a very serious offense. It can result in immediate blocking. Even if their real identity is easy to locate on Wikipedia or the internet, ONLY use their Wikipedia username. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
European Journal of Oncology
Something seems to be wrong with the Aspartame controversy talk and I don't have time to find out what it is and try to fix it, so I'll give you a quick answer here if you don't mind. The journal you're looking for is Italian (publisher's HP) and I don't think it's listed in PubMed. Cheers --Six words (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Very interesting! Notice that the Scientific Director is Morando Soffritti himself, IOW he's self-publishing his Ramazzini studies in his own journal. That doesn't mean it's a fringe journal, but it would be nice if it were listed at PubMed, which it isn't.
Italian to English translation
Magazine founded in 1997 by L. Caldarola, C. Maltoni as the official organ of the Italian Cancer Society, with the aim to devote to training and updating of the Italian Oncology specialists on topics of interest.
The posts after Arydberg's didn't show/were accessible as diffs only, but Novangelis fixed it (nothing big, just a missing ref-tag). I don't know if Soffritti is still scientific director (there are two different versions of the “official homepage” [18][19]), but it's very interesting indeed. --Six words (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Ramazzini Studies section
Just wanted to expand on my comments there. That "safety" section has been a constant battleground for inclusion of primary articles/studies (mainly from the anti-aspartame fringe crowd), so I re-wrote the section using only secondary sources/reviews; it is more compliant with WP:MEDRS, and it has the happy side-effect that we don't have to argue over every single primary study as they come out - "Is it a MEDRS review/secondary source? No? Doesn't go in." Adding things like the CCC statement opens that door back up and I'd like to just cite the highest quality MEDRS sources. Yobol (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand the point but this isn't about MEDRS but RS describing the controversy. We don't need to get into nitty gritty details that promote a fringe POV, but we should document that Ramazzini Foundation has issued controversial studies. Right now we're missing a citation for that! -- Brangifer (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
We weren't until you deleted the Magnuson reference (which analyzes the Ramazzini studies in excruciating detail). :) Yobol (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh! I only saw the abstract. I didn't realize it dealt with Ramazzini. Put it back in! I still think that providing a link to CCC is good. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry, I reverted you on the CCC source. Replied on talk page, I'm afraid including that source is just going to open up more conflicts to add non-MEDRS sources in the safety section in the future. Yobol (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert you, but you're not abiding by the MEDRS guideline. WP:MEDRS doesn't govern all content. (See third paragraph.) The CCC report doesn't deal with biomedical facts but with methodological and ethical details. Such details are explicitly exempted from MEDRS. Only RS governs them. You are unfairly raising the bar. The matter was discussed here.-- Brangifer (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
It's a fine line from where I'm standing; it's a methodological issue regarding a medical claim by the study (i.e. aspartame causes cancer); probably too close for my taste, but if you or anyone else reverts I won't edit-war over it. As I noted in the article talk page, I wouldn't mind the source used in a non-"safety" (i.e. medical claim) portion of the article - I suggested moving the entire Ramazzini section out of the "safety" section as it wasn't all the relevant/important to the scientific consensus about aspartame - it was a manufactured controversy based on science by press conference. Yobol (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
....and tagged. See the IP's user page. I've actually done quite a bit of work on developing and expanding the Luc Montagnier#Controversies article section dealing with this. Take a look. New Scientist may end up like Nature and regret they published him.
It's a case that is similar to Linus Pauling's error: a Nobel Prize winner starts dabbling in areas outside their specialty and things go wrong. He's also getting up there in years, so his judgment may be getting poor because of age. The glaringly unscientific nature of Montagnier's so-called "research" becomes obvious already in the scathing criticisms from the patent examiner. Even they point out the flaws. The patent document may be slow (and I've left a hidden note in the article pointing this out), but it's worth reading.
Montagnier's going down the same road as Jacques Benveniste, including planning on treatment, just like Andrew Wakefield was setting up a whole system of products, vaccines, and treatment methods to earn him really big money once he had ruined the reputation of the MMR vaccine. Well, he got busted as an "elaborate fraud"! Montagnier's plans mean vulnerable patients risk getting defrauded, and if my experience over the years has taught me anything, he'll become the poster child and hero of those alternative medicine promoters who have an uncanny knack for finding exactly those things that are unscientific and unethical (and deliberately ignoring all mainstream science) and championing only those fringe things: Martin J Walker, Gary Null, Mike Adams, Ilena Rosenthal, Joseph Mercola, Tim Bolen, Jeff Rense, Viera Scheibner, User:Ombudsman (operator of the blacklisted website w-hale.to (remove the dash), etc.. These types consistently side with anything fringe and always attack mainstream medicine and science. The fact that their heroes and clients always get busted in courts of law and have their licenses to practice medicine removed only makes their opposition to mainstream medicine stronger. That's the nature of conspiracy theory buffs. They know that they can always get a following and earn money off of the primitive and uninformed members of society. No, Montagnier's setting himself up to go down in history books as a medical quack. I just hope that he can be exposed and stopped before too many people needlessly die as a result. Hmmm...this looks like a story for Brian Deer! -- Brangifer (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (BDORT), characterized as a form of applied kinesiology,[2] is a patented alternative medicine diagnostic procedure in which a patient forms an 'O' with his or her fingers, and the diagnostician subjectively evaluates the patient's health according to the patient's finger strength as the diagnostician tries to pry them apart.[3][4]
BDORT was invented by Dr. Yoshiaki Omura, along with several other related alternative medicine techniques. They are featured in Omura's self-published Acupuncture & Electro-Therapeutics Research, The International Journal, of which Omura is founder and editor-in-chief, as well as in seminars presented by Omura and his colleagues.[5]
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejected the initial BDORT patent application as 'too unbelievable to be true'.[3] The fact that a patent was later granted to the BDORT has been cited as an example of 'high weirdness' by one firm of patent attorneys.[6]
In the only known independent evaluation of BDORT or of any other BDORT-related treatment and technique by a mainstream scientific or medical body, it was ruled that the physician was guilty of malpractice and that BDORT "is not a plausible, reliable, or scientific technique for making medical decisions."[7]
the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand ruled, in two separate cases brought before it in 2003, that Dr. Richard Warwick Gorringe, MB, ChB of Hamilton, New Zealand, who used BDORT (which he also called 'PMRT') to the exclusion of conventional diagnoses on his patients, was guilty of malpractice. In the first case, the Tribunal found it "is not a plausible, reliable, or scientific technique for making medical decisions" and "there is no plausible evidence that PMRT has any scientific validity."
In the second case the Tribunal ruled Gorringe again relied on BDORT to the exclusion of traditional diagnoses, which ultimately led to the death of a patient.[8][9] As a result of these findings and conclusions, Gorringe was fined and stripped of his license to practice medicine.
Collapsing ref sections for faster loading of especially long pages
I didn't know if you would find my thanks at User talk:Ocaasi, so I wanted to post them directly to you, and copy my followup comment from there, considering your interest and the label "Eventualist".
I wonder if you would know of a Wikipedian whose area of expertise is programming, that they might devise a collapsible box that will register when the page is printed or copied, whether or not it is opened, yet remains collapsed upon initial loading of the page. It's not remotely the sort of thing I know how to do, but it seems as though once you have the gist of the problem, the way forward is to try and craft a solution, not to maintain a limiting status quo. Is there a suggestion box-type page for programmers here? I realize they might not be able to whip it up in a week, but to get the right minds rolling on solving that problem would be a great step forward with something I know you've seen as a problem as well. Thanks again, Abrazame (talk) 09:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there is this: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). You will have to make your proposal very clear and document a real need. I'm not even sure I understand what you mean, so I suggest you reword your idea here and try it out on me. If I can help you word this better, you'll have a better chance. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I yearn for a policy that thwarts SPAs, something in the direction of limiting their one-sided interests. For example, if an editor's contributions are over 40% on one article, they automatically get a warning, and when they get to 50% they are automatically blocked from the article and it's talk page, IOW an effective article ban, but not a topic ban since there are likely other articles dealing with the same topic, but automated bots can't figure that out. This would hopefully force them to start editing other topics for awhile, and when the percentage drops back down to 40%, then they are again allowed access. My basic thinking is that editors should be forced to make the encyclopedia their main motivation, not warring over their favorite topic. It's valuable experience for SPAs to edit in other topic areas and it's good for them to learn that peaceful collaboration actually works. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I moved it. Read the edit summary. It shouldn't even be in the lead, so I moved it to the appropriate section. I suspect that in India they use the word "science" rather loosely! -- Brangifer (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks better, thanks. India is a culture with a long history of systematizing seemingly esoteric practices (yoga, ayurveda, etc). So I think it's the difference is between systematic and scientific, about which the latter has a quite different meaning in its modern usage. Ocaasi (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there's even a disambiguation page for Vedic science! Take a look at the talk page and this thread I've started:
I'm new to using TB. Why do TB's I leave on your page pile up, but ones you leave for me appear at the top of any WP page I am at, and disappear everywhere when I click on them? PPdd (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
That's because I don't use TBs. They clutter up the page and can be seen as "demanding" attention "right now", interferring with other activities, so use them sparingly for emergencies. I use my watchlist. When I look at it I notice your comments on your talk page which is on my watchlist. The orange bar you see is activated by Wikipedia whenever someone edits your talk page. As soon as you go to your talkpage it's inactivated. Clicking the bar takes you to your talkpage. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Uhm, even if I can understand some exasperation on your part, but there's really no need to "kick them while they're down", is there [21]? Perhaps you might want to refactor or strike that. Fut.Perf.☼17:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Sure thing. I just felt that the documention of our attempts to meet Immortale's concerns and his failures to cooperate (showing his charges to be false) needed to be documented for Immortale's own sake. He needs to understand why he got into trouble. The rest was joking sarcasm as the wikilinks revealed. It's more than interesting that both Immortale (IPs from Sweden) and Arydberg (name) are apparently Swedish and exhibit the same types of behavior....I'd advise an SPI. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Immortale left an AN/I notice on only two pages, so I left a notice on the talk page of everyone who has recently edited the talk page, regardless of their POV. That's fair enough and is common practice. His attempt naturally boomeranged and then he resorted to block evasion. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Request to review edits
Hi BR. Would you please have a look at the revisions I made to the body of the chiropractic article. I added a pretty comprehensive summary of the current state of the evidence of effectiveness (you may think it is not all necessary?). Also, I removed the mention of an older critical review by Ernst (which you may think needs to be left in) and an article that responds to Ernsts critical review. I will now add a 1 sentence revision to the LEAD, you may want to critically appraise that edit as well :)
Many thanks!Puhlaa (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
MEDRS and medical conclusions for primary studies published in alt med peer reviewed journals
I left this same help request at WLU's talk page, and I thought you or he could help.
Two editors reverted my deletions for nonMEDRS of medical conclusions in primary source studies published in alt med peer reviewed journals. I undid their reversions, citing WP:BURDEN. They keep putting it back up, saying vaguely only that I do not understand MEDRS. Having done phil of sci and data analysis at UCLA, then at Stanford for 11 years, then at Caltech for four, then most recently at MIT, I at least have the potential for understanding MEDRS. The dispute keeps recurring and is discussed here[22]. Maybe I am somehow wrong, but if I say this
"For example, the medical claims from the primary source study in 'Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (eCAM) is an international, peer-reviewed journal that seeks to understand the sources and to encourage rigorous research in this new, yet ancient world of complementary and alternative medicine.' does not need a tag to be deleted."
, then cite WP:BURDEN, and all I have is a response like this
"PPdd, you apparently have seriously misunderstood the MEDRS guideline. I suggest that you stop deleting material, from this or any other article. At the very most, you might consider tagging specific material with [unreliable medical source?]. Note that you should use this tag only when you think it unlikely that the material can be supported by a reliable source, not merely to indicate that no one has yet bothered to supply an WP:Inline citation after each and every sentence. I think you would do well to do a diligent search for such sources before tagging anything"
Anyone who knows his admitted use of drugs wouldn't be surprised. I don't mention him, but for your sake I'll refactor. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I like the first sentences. The mind altering drug parts detracts from the eloquence of the first sentences, and is not just ad homonym, it is not really true, as some prosthetic mind altering drugs are already advanced enough to short term improve intelligence test results, and improving actual intelligence is not far off. (I knew Timothy Leary, who stole two girlfriends from me in two years, when he was 70 years old and they were about 22 and 24. I also recently returned from MIT teaching neuroethics, about the ethical prescription of prosthetic drugs.) The first sentences are so well stated, that I have not added any of my long winded comments because I had nothing to add. PPdd (talk) 02:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Weasel word them back
I used to scoff at people in arguments about alt med, pseudoscience, religion, etc. I had disdain for anyone arguing with a proponent, and considered proponents beneath disdain, and beneath engaging with in any way. Now here I am... I was disappointed at an emerging "keep" not "merge" for acupuncture point, as this has been a hiding place for deletions from acupuncture, so there will be still another contentfork redundancy to watch. Now the same thing appears to be trending at integrative medicine (3 merge, 5 oppose, and likely part of a mass community about to chime in). This will be still another unnecessary CONTENTFORK redundancy to have pop up on my watch page, and likely to be much more POV than alt med.
What do you think of the idea of throwing back meaningless integrative words at the "opposers", like using "integrate" instead of "merge" in the discussion, then using some argument about "a unified approach to the fields as a whole, alternative, complementary, and integrative medicine"?
A big problem emerging with merge opposers is the "my father is bigger than your father" attitude, e.g., "Alternative medicine should be part of integrative medicine because integrative medicine is bigger", coupled with "I don't believe in alternative medicine, but I believe in integrative medicine as an alternative to allopathic medicine" (a self contradiction), or "integrative medicine has real MDs, and alternative medicine doesn't". Do you think it would help to propose a "coming together, group hug" worded compromise whereby it is agreed to integrate the articles (not merge one under another), and if the material gets to big for the alt med article, to later start up a new IM article? PPdd (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
IM?
I thought I knew what integrative medicine was. I had met various MDs at cafe lunches at ucla, stanford, ucsf, and harvard. They said they did "integrative medicine", integrating alt med into conventinoal med. When I pointed out that it is logically impossible to integrate inconsistent things, etc., the usual arguments, they said that they just recommend placebo treatments for the effect. Some pointed to AMA recommendations to go along with religious and alt med beliefs so as not to alienate the patient as another justification. They also went on justified rampage against the poor health care system, treating and not preventing, treating patients like dollars or numbers, etc. But I learned today that there is another kind of IM doctor, who is not a med doctor, but instead has a "PhD" in alt med, or something like that. How prevelent are the two kinds of int med? How does it differ from multi-field CAM? Have I been living in a bubble? PPdd (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I applied for rollback rights on your recommendation, but I was told to use twinkle for a couple of weeks and come back and rollback would be granted. I enabled Twinkle on my gadgets, but I don't understand how to use it. Here] is an example of vandalism I undid a couple of minutes ago. How would Twinkle have helped, and how do I read about how to use it? PPdd (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I think it gives you the option of adding an edit summary. That makes one think a bit before acting, lessening the chance of making a mistake. BTW, if you haven't done it yet, you should set your preferences to always ask you for an edit summary before saving an edit. One should ALWAYS leave some type of edit summary.
Rollback is very final. No edit summary. BANG. ALL the recent edits (in an unbroken row) by that editor are deleted. If one makes a mistake, one should immediately self-revert with an edit summary as an explanation, otherwise one can be accused of misusing rollback and lose the right. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Ha; I'm not so sure that my taking time to think about an edit summary is a good thing. Here] is an example of my edit summary for this act of zebra vandalism. :) PPdd (talk) 07:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Just learn to keep it short. For example, if something looks like possible vandalism, but you're not completely certain, you can revert and leave an edit summary: "vandalism (?)" Even single words for your own sake are better than nothing. Just keep in mind that an edit summary is permanent. It doesn't get erased or reverted, so be careful what you write. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello BullR. I saw your comment at WP:RSN#JSHO a reliable source? I can understand the response you got from the SPI filing since (a) Richardmalter is not currently blocked, (b) they won't identify IPs. Nonetheless a block of the IP, or semiprotection of the article, should be on the table in my opinion. Why not ask User:Spike Wilbury what he thinks? He is the last admin to block Richardmalter, and he has been active recently. The Arbcom notice at the top of Talk:BDORT does indeed suggest that Richardmalter should not be editing that page using an IP. You might need more diffs to convince the admins that this IP really is Richard Malter. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree, just as it's not good to edit an archive, but I was hoping to get their attention. Thanks for your help. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
This is not a complete list of today's activities by this self described "group" of professionals. You can look at their contribution histories for more.
Although “these” are new editor(s), they appear to have no interest in improving Wikipedia except to censor images of professional women from they describe in edit summaries as “alluring” and “should be replaced by an image of someone in a lab coat”. Despite repeated warnings, and 3RR warnings, they continue. While trying to be sensitive to cultural norms, editors should not be able to impose their own cultures dress code on women health care practicioners as represented at Wikipedia, and they have violated 3RR after warnings, and admit to being WP:MP.
Additionally, one editor suddently appeared from out of the blue at the same time on the talk page and said something like, "I'm not a TCM or alt med advocate, I'm a student of allopathic medicine". I have never heard a med student describe themselves that way. It is as dumb as a stoned kid randomly walking up to a cop and saying, "look at me, I'm not stoned". Similarly, there is an editor named Mallexikon who is pretending to be a "neural athiest who does not believe in TCM or the supernatural", who is editing in identical style, and argues that TCM is being "singled out" in the article, when western medicine had the same astrological/supernatural begginings, so I am "using this text to one-sidedly accuse" TCM by citing the source and not writing about how bad western medicine used to be... in a TCM article. AAARGH!. Anyway, I used up my 3RRs for the day and cannot undo the last deletion of an image by User: Brendan.mattson. PPdd (talk) 06:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
A few points PPdd.
One, you can always ask for a sockpuppet investigation at WP:SPI, if you really think it is the same person. For coordinated off-wiki efforts, see WP:MEATPUPPET, also ban-able in certain circumstances.
3RR does NOT apply in cases of vandalism, copyright or BLP violations. Be sure that the edits you are describing rise to those specifically, if you are going to go beyond 3RR. It sounds like these edits are not vandalism--though they may be unconstructive, they do not appear to be deliberately so. Take it to talk if possible and if not go to WP:DISPUTE resolution.
Images are not just about cultural norms, but also suggestiveness, Weight, representation in sources. If an image makes an acupuncturist look like a hooker with a wax fetish, it is probably not the right image. Consider if you'd have the same reaction if it was a "scientist" in a flowery low-cut blouse hovering over a man's happy trail. The comparison might not go in both directions, but I think I can sympathize with the image remover.
Those thoughts are not inclusive, as I only looked at a few of the diffs. Basically, consider if you are using images which represent the most common aspects of TCM, or particularly ones which make it look bad (ewww placenta... ohhh hooker). Ocaasi (talk) 08:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
It wrong when women are told what to wear by men arguing that otherwise they look like hookers, if the woman is near a bare chested man her apearance is described in edit summaries as "seductive", a medicine bottle is interpreted to "look like a bottle of wine", the room "looks like a hotel room", and the man complains they should "wear a white lab coat". If a man was treating the man, the objection would not have been made; if the woman was treating another woman the objection and interpretation would never have been made; if the objecting males were did not find the woman attractive, e.g., if she was 80 years old in exactly the same photo, the objection would never have been made. When I first saw the image, my thought was, "that is exactly what all of the acupuncture/moxibustion sessions I have seen look like in new age norhtern california, candle, headboard, and all." The group is certainly at a minimum MP, since they first self described as “A number of concerned professionals have been attempting to remove some offensive material from the Traditional Chinese Medicine page.”[42]. Then they took that back and claimed they did not know each other, without explaining how they knew it was a "group of concerned professionals". I am going to let a few more get online before using your link for reporting MP/SP, if they do not get caught before that. It turns out that an admin independently caught one of them alrady, and another editor already caught them doing the same thing on another page. PPdd (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I think you're cloaking this issue in some cocktail of progressive egalitarianism, misogyny, and heteronormativity but it really has to do with common sense (the universal not normative kind). The image is bad--not because it's a woman and a man, or a woman with an exposed shoulder, or a female professional rather than a male--but because it looks like a non-platonic, likely romantic, lower-abdominal seduction. I take issue with your presumption of prejudice: indeed, if it was 'a man' about to light a candle below another man's navel, and 'the doctor' was wearing a t-shirt exposing his biceps, it would absolutely still evoke more than mere doctor-patient privilege. You may be right that the issue would be avoided if it showed an elderly woman with a younger female, but that's not really the issue, since the image at hand is one which is not sufficiently distinct. Consider: if the image was posted at blowjob, prostitute, foreplay, or romance, would it look out of place? Then reconsider whether it's the best choice.
Also, it's not a very good photograph... the background is blurry, including the practitioner's face, and the lighting is poor, especially in the corner, and the implement in her hand is not easy to make out. None sufficient reasons to exclude the photo but just more reason to look for a different one. Ocaasi (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
As for the meatpuppetry, rather than perform a sting operation, just inform the editors of our policy, and make sure they realize that operating in concert is against policy and ban-able. Then direct them to WP:CONSENSUS so they understand that numbers don't win arguments here; arguments do. Ocaasi (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
When I first saw the image over at Commons my only thought was "perfect image. looks exactly like what I saw." I and others saw an almost identical looking session (which also included blowing moxi smoke in the ear), same pose, same dress, same room, same lighting. No one in any way (to my knowlege) thought it was sexually provocative. The funny thing is, the woman who "treated" me also had a shoulder exposed, but she was an older hippie type, with stringy grey streaked brown hair. I had the auricular moxy treatment and my thought was not, "wow she is sexy", but "when will this be over with. I am bored. I want to leave." When I heard the objection (after edit warring and creation of multiple SP/MP accounts) I looked for another image again and found none (I had previously looked for other images of acu/moxy). Then I thought to myself that this is exactly the kind of situation my ex girlfriend railed against all of the time, as she was a very attractive NSF fellow at stanford and was constantly hit on and got comments, but she insisted on not altering her dress style to a more conservative one (I think some feminists, like my ex girlfriend, are sometimes oversensitive). The fact is, that's the way women dress in new age california alt med clinics. If they wanted to appear sexy, they likely would wear skin tight clothing or a bikini, not loose frilly stuff that hides most of the body shape. If the image was posted at some of the blowjob etc. articles, I would wonder why there was a needle sticking out of the man's navel area, and wonder why he did not look all that happy, and that maybe blowjob was not the right artricle, instead maybe masochism. If all new age acu/moxi In any case, the image is highly representative of new age california TCM clinics, and I have not been able to locate a good acu/moxi image, or I would already have added it, long before the MP censors came along. (I would have added it, not replacecd the existing image.) PPdd (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
(Incidentally, my ex was hot, and wore a brazier-less tank top every day, and worked in Linus Pauling's lab doing psychoimmunology stuff. And I took my oral phd quals wearing only blue jean cut off hot pants with no shirt or shoes, without even thinking about it. I was barely out of my teens, and amatuer dancer, and had just got back from working out and from the pool swimming. I had the luckiest run, where every question asked happened to be one I had carefully studied. Finally, a Macaurthur awardee on the examination committe asked, "how do youprove the Fisher Randomization test is asymptotically normal?" I had heard of the test, but never seen it. I scrambled around stating the test and result, outlined some other proofs of normality, then gave up. Not being very smart but being a somewhat good strategist, I suddenly took charge and looked at the committee chair, an out of field engineer, and asked him, ""how do you prove it". He threw up his hands and said he did not know. I then looked at the young super-star probabilist on the committe and asked him. He did not know. I asked the near-emaritus elderly senior on the committee and he did not know. Finally, I asked the MacArthur fellow guy (he was at the time one of only two authors of a math article in Scientific American, or so it was said, and he had been kicked out of stanford as an undergrad for depicting the Virgin Mary in a "provacative" way on the cover of the campus humor magazine). He said, "I don't remember". I had not thought about that one of the members might be gay and be turned on by my dress, but if they were, my Question turnaround would have stopped it.) PPdd (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
An image like this isn't worth battling over. It really is bad. Find another one or don't use one at all. You're the one going to get in trouble in this situation, and that would be rather ironic since you're being opposed by a bunch of socks and meatpuppets who happen to be right about the picture. Get rid of it and end the skirmish. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I was originally just letting it go as you suggest, then they used my laxity on this to do bunch of additional deletions with the same "rationalle" that the RS content made their profession look bad, so I decided to draw a zero tolerance line, and let them keep edit warring, starting a new account after each 3 reversions, which indicates they are more sohisticated than their single edit contrib histories indicate. PPdd (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't care abuout the image (or even about alt meds, I just figured it was a good "dive in" place to learn about WP and editing, and it was). I just found a third SP from five years ago, User:BMattson, explaining how brendan could know sophisticated language to use in argument, while playing naive. Apparently he has been editing anon, too, and two IPs were shut down as SPs for him already. Depending on the outcome of the SP/MP investigation, I might put the image back up to learn more IPs and SP/MPs as it seems to be an attractive lure for them. PPdd (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
As tempting as that might be, don't do it. It would be a violation of WP:Point. Seek peace, not war.
As to BMattson, the individual we're dealing with is a professional TCM practitioner. You must not out him by revealing his actual name, and must respect his wishes to change usernames to one that's more anonymous. Just keep in mind that he has a COI. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I already looked him up long at the beginning, did not reveal anything, and instead gave him a suggestion on his talk page about being anonymous with a link to how to do a user name change. But he ignored it and SPd. Y (that was supposed to look like a peace sign) :) PPdd (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Internet based planned mass attack on WP alt med articles by “concerned professionals”
There is an admitted mass attack on WP alt med being prepared to deliberately introduce POV and create a new “consensus”, as posted at a discussion forum of “professionals”[43]. For example, they just OR invented[44] new “accreditation” at WP for their “doctorate” degree. The already started edit warring at TCM[45], to make a point about new age dress styles not being appropriate for their profession and trying to eliminate content on snake oil because it “makes them look bad” from its history. Is this WP:MP? PPdd (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Deaf ears
Thanks. In case you might think your make peace comment fell on deaf ears, I made a fist, bit my knuckles really hard, and this, this, and this popped out, and maybe the very end of this will end up in a free massage from a “doc” who teaches massage. (OK, so maybe after all that it would have been better for all if I had been deaf, because I hear WP:silence, and the cheshire cat just told me my what good ears I have.) Y :) PPdd (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about being sloppy on the sourcing on deer penis. I shortened and reworded the content and sources off the Deer penis article without checking them, assuming others had. I might have done this in other sections where there was an independent article at WP, in which case I would have put a "see" hat in the section. For the other content, I got it straight from the source and reworded it for copyright. PPdd (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
^Cite error: The named reference Ernst-death was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to pseudoscience if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision. 
