Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:45, 20 January 2008

${\displaystyle \star }$  Some principles governing this talk page  ${\displaystyle \star }$ Please observe Misplaced Pages:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette here. This talk page is my territory, and I assume janitorial responsibility for it. I may, without notice, refactor comments to put like with like, correct indents, or retitle sections to reflect their contents more clearly. While I reserve the right to delete comments, I am normally opposed to doing so and use archives instead. If I inadvertently change the meaning, please contact me! When all else fails, check the edit history. -- Fyslee (collaborate)

${\displaystyle \star }$  Regarding posting (or reposting) of my personal info at Misplaced Pages  ${\displaystyle \star }$ ${\displaystyle \star }$  DON'T DO IT!!  ${\displaystyle \star }$ Lately I have become more sensitive to the posting of personal information about myself here at Misplaced Pages. I am the target of cyberstalking and hate mail from some pretty unbalanced people and regularly receive threats (including occasional death threats). While I don't normally have any reason to hide my true identity, any past revealings by myself should not be construed by others as license to do it here at Misplaced Pages, where only my "Fyslee" tag should be used. While such revealings here have often been done innocently, I still reserve the right to delete such personal information posted here at Misplaced Pages by others. My own and my family's security is at stake here, and I would appreciate support in this matter. Thanks. -- Fyslee (collaborate)

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Editing controversial articles

Feel free to comment. -- Fyslee / talk 07:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

CAM

Wow! I really have to hand it to you, just being able to tolerate that editing enviroment. --Ronz (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Obvious POV pushing is much easier to deal with than the subtle forms, and is much easier when it is obviously wrong. -- Fyslee / talk 00:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose so. What happens, do they just get blocked after awhile and then new ones show up? --Ronz (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is often the case. We do need editors who are believers in alternative medicine and fringe subjects, but without the religious zeal. We need them because they know these subjects well and can tell the story from that POV. As long as they use V & RS and don't soapbox, they can include a good explanation in the articles. The problem is that it is this religous zeal and refusal to edit NPOV that gets them in trouble. Editors like Dematt, who understands NPOV quite well, are few and far between because too many fringe editors have a tendency to see Misplaced Pages as a vehicle for advocacy. Plenty of other editors of all persuasions have that tendency when they are newbies (I dare say it's rather normal....;-), but many learn quickly and stop violating policies and attempting to misuse it to insert unsourced OR and fight personal agendas that are not shared by V & RS. Not all make it that far and are blocked quickly, while some are downright insidious and sneaky in their disruptiveness and have long careers here that waste enormous amounts of time and keep us from actual editing. The polite ones are the most dangerous, because they use fake politeness to play on being civil while engaging in subtle POV pushing, talk page disruption, and refusal to abide by a consensus that goes against them. They manifest this by politely and endlessly continuing to debate a subject and repeating the same old arguments that have been shot down repeatedly by many editors and admins, and they hope to tire everyone out and in an unguarded moment sneak their edits into the articles in some modified form. Even solid editors and admins like Tim Vickers and MastCell fall for that and compromise, instead of pressing the idiots up against the wall and then blocking them when they crack and reveal their true agenda. The present "peer-reviewed" nonsense is a perfect example of such an editor who refuses to abide by a good consensus against him and his little group of yay-sayers who will also get blocked soon. No need to AGF with any of them, just keep cool and don't get provoked. Tendentious and disruptive editors of this type are the death of Misplaced Pages. -- Fyslee / talk 05:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You're a little tough on Tim and MastCell. There is an NPOV for these bogus articles, but only from a historical sense. But you have got to love this quote: In other words, the reinforcement delivered (improvement of symptoms) is probably not random, because homeopathy users are more likely to take their remedies when they are feeling the worst, a condition which almost inevitably moves back towards the mean, leading to the impression that homeopathy improved the patient's symptoms. That's why there are zealous believers in this crap. They resort to a treatment for a bad condition, which inevitably improves, and the patient attributes it to the CAM bogosity. But, once you try to repeat that result with a true scientific study, there is failure. The religious zeal of these people is remarkably like what we see with Creationists. Ignore science because it does not fit your world view. This does take energy to fight. OrangeMarlin 07:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You're no doubt right. I'm just not as patient as they are....;-) -- Fyslee / talk 08:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

Would you explain what CAM is, a link, if available, would be nice? I was asked on my talk page about this and I haven't a clue what it is. Thanks, --CrohnieGal 13:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll answer, since maybe Fyslee is skiing a fjord somewhere. CAM is Complementary and alternative medicine. It's the whole group of non-scientific practices that claim to be medicine, such as homeopathy, herbalism, accupuncture, etc.. There is a quote, and I might not have it quite right, but there is no such thing as alternative medicine. There is medicine that has been rigorously tested for safety and efficacy, and there are potentially useful therapies out there that have yet to be tested or have been and failed to prove any usefulness. OrangeMarlin 16:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well after reading through all of this I came across this too I see that you all have been marked as 'special'. I don't know how you or anyone handles such hostilities like this. This article seems like a rewrite of articles already in use but with a twist. I'm surprise it hasn't been speedy deleted by now. Good luck on the attempt of balance you are trying. --CrohnieGal 14:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I will save some time by simply including a section from the CAM talk page:

Clarification please

N.B.: (These questions are just for John. Give him a good chance to answer the questions before entering this discussion. Please respect this.)

Hi John. I'd like to "pick your brain," so to speak, and get a better understanding of what you mean in this edit summary:

• "This is the CAM article. Not the alternative medicine article. The topics are completely different. See NCCAM and actually study the website." (My emphasis.)

To start this off, let me state where I'm "coming from" on this particular matter. Since all CAM methods are alternative medicine methods and techniques (and nothing else), how can CAM and alternative medicine be "completely different" topics? Of course it's a given to those who really know this subject (as we both do extremely well), that CAM includes only a few alternative medicine methods, not all of them, but still nothing other than them.

Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) is an umbrella term for the two manners in which alternative medicine methods are most commonly used:

1. Alternative medicine methods used "Complementary" to mainstream methods:

(a) in combination with them;

(b) in cooperation with them;

(c) by agreement with an (normally) MD, or the MD themselves using them;

(d) often legally because an MD is allowed to practice experimental medicine, although the MD can still be prosecuted for fraud, malpractice, and practicing substandard medicine.

(e) This is the "Collaboration model."

2. Alternative medicine methods used as "Alternatives" to mainstream methods:

(a) instead of them;

(b) often in opposition to them;

(c) often opposed by MDs;

(d) often illegally because of violations of "unlicensed practice of medicine" laws, consumer protection laws, and marketing laws.

(e) This is the "Competition model."

Now what do you think of all this? I have noticed that you have repeatedly claimed that there was a difference and I have been quite puzzled about why you do this.

Please answer these two questions:

A. How can they be "completely different" topics?

(We are talking about precisely the same methods, and the only difference is the setting (a through e).)

B. What is your strategy?

(There must be a reason for your repeated insistence on trying to separate the inseparable, which you claim are "completely different" topics.)

-- Fyslee / talk 06:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I, of course, have already specified above in great detail everything that you are asking for. Yet, I see yet again an absolute total failue to point out one thing that is specifically wrong with this article. -- John Gohde (talk) 12:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't ask two questions if I saw such answers, or was satisfied with them. I have seen alot of repetition of the claim that they are different, but seen no evidence for the claim, and repetition doesn't make the claim true. Please answer both of the questions. You are welcome to copy and paste from above the things you believe apply as previous answers or information. Maybe I missed something. -- Fyslee / talk 15:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am still awaiting answers. -- Fyslee / talk 05:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I entered this discussion long before this entire section of personal attacks was written. My arguments are given above. It is a simple matter of reading the written word above. It is currently section #13.1 which is located between the solid, thick, horizontal bars. -- John Gohde (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not addressing anything else in this article. I am addressing a statement you have made and I want answers to two questions. It's as simple as that. BTW, there is nothing that can even remotely be construed as a personal attack in this section. Please answer the questions. -- Fyslee / talk 23:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The quotes OrangeMarlin is referring to above are covered here:

According to notable skeptics and physicians like Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, James Randi, Marcia Angell, Phil B. Fontanarosa, George D. Lundberg, and Stephen Barrett, the concept of "alternative" is often being misused in a misleading form of marketing, implying something that is far from the case:

• "Alternative has two possible meanings. Correctly employed, it refers to methods that have equal value for a particular purpose. (An example would be two antibiotics capable of killing a particular organism.) When applied to unproven methods, however, the term can be misleading because methods that are unsafe or ineffective are not reasonable alternatives to proven treatment. To emphasize this fact, we place the word "alternative" in quotation marks throughout this book whenever it is applied to methods that are not based on established scientific knowledge." - Stephen Barrett, MD

• "There is no alternative medicine. There is only scientifically proven, evidence-based medicine supported by solid data or unproven medicine, for which scientific evidence is lacking. Whether a therapeutic practice is 'Eastern' or 'Western,' is unconventional or mainstream, or involves mind-body techniques or molecular genetics is largely irrelevant except for historical purposes and cultural interest. As believers in science and evidence, we must focus on fundamental issues-namely, the patient, the target disease or condition, the proposed or practiced treatment, and the need for convincing data on safety and therapeutic efficacy." - Fontanarosa P.B., and Lundberg G.D. "Alternative medicine meets science" JAMA. 1998; 280: 1618-1619.

• "There cannot be two kinds of medicine - conventional and alternative. There is only medicine that has been adequately tested and medicine that has not, medicine that works and medicine that may or may not work. Once a treatment has been tested rigorously, it no longer matters whether it was considered alternative at the outset. If it is found to be reasonably safe and effective, it will be accepted." - Angell M, Kassirer JP, "Alternative medicine--the risks of untested and unregulated remedies." N Engl J Med 1998;339:839.

What is considered alternative changes over time. If and when an approach, initially regarded as "unproven", is proven to be safe and effective, it will be adopted into conventional health care and over time may cease to be considered "alternative".

Thank you, I have this saved on my user page to reread so I understand it all. --CrohnieGal 20:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

References

1. Alternative medicine meets science. Fontanarosa P.B., and Lundberg G.D. JAMA. 1998; 280: 1618-1619.
2. Alternative medicine--the risks of untested and unregulated remedies. Angell M, Kassirer JP. N Engl J Med 1998;339:839.
3. NCCAM -- CAM Basics: What is Cam? Paraphrase

-- Fyslee / talk 19:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Orthomolecular psychiatry

In case you weren't watching the page, orthomolecular psychiatry is getting a lot of attention from a relative noob. I don't have the expertise to fix mistakes, cull POV sources and all the other stuff that needs to be done. Interested? WLU (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly a newbie. I won't get near that editor. It's not worth the grief. Although one of my best friends here in Denmark is a nephew of one of the founders of orthomolecular psychiatry (Dr. Reiter), the subject doesn't interest me that much. On another subject, you may want to take a look at my latest edit at Jim Butler's talk page. -- Fyslee / talk 20:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

So much for the lazy way out... I'll try to deal with it as best I can.

Regards acupuncture, I'm pretty much staying out of any disputes on that score after the Chronic fatigue syndrome fiasco. Is it just me or is the alternative health crowd and their opponents starting to get more aggressive and disputes more acrimonious? What a mess, makes me want to restrict myself to nuclear physics edits. If only I knew anything about it. WLU (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Quackery

An article that you have been involved in editing, Quackery, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Quackery. Thank you. —Whig (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

List of PS

Yes I was warned. So how do you deal with this. As you remember we had a discussion going on on the talk page about AK. How does this get posted against consensus. Anthon01 (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What consensus and on which article? -- Fyslee / talk 15:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

On the List of Psuedoscience article we were discussing the "AK" edit. There was no agreement on the extra text. Now that extra text has been added. Anthon01 (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that it, an extremely well-sourced addition, was removed by editors who wished to protect AK and chiropractic from mention on the page. While the text there shouldn't get too long (the actual article is the place to do that), the sources that were added were necessary to justify inclusion on the list. A neutral description that didn't document it as being considered pseudoscientific would not meet inclusion criteria. The documentation requirement is now fulfilled. The latest addition you made is more appropriate for the article and adds nothing related to documenting why it is included on the page. In fact that quote, while accurate, really says nothing special, because it can be said about anything, including voodoo. It appears to be added to try to give AK more support than deserved by an appeal to popularity. It is used by exceptionally few other (than chiropractors) professionals, and some of them have been successfully prosecuted for the tragedies their patients have suffered because of using substandard medicine (AK). -- Fyslee / talk 15:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

But you side stepped my question about consensus? Anthon01 (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Your e-mail

Your e-mail about a user supposedly violating his probation was not specific enough for me to take any action. If you feel action is necessary, please post to WP:ANI a brief and clear summary of the objectionable edits (with diffs), links to the rule or policy that you think they are in violation of, and the action that you think should be taken. Sandstein (talk) 09:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Blood Electrification

You said "IF blood electrification really worked it would have been patented and put in use a long time ago by the pharmaceutical industry, but since it doesn't, they can't." How is it patentable? Curious to know your thoughts. Anthon01 (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

How on earth did I miss this on my own talk page? Weird! The answer would probably be that the equipment would be professionally made and patented, its use would be licensed only to physicians and/or technicians, and the necessary procedures would become the subjects of seminars and congresses, all a very profitable venture for thousands of people and employing many more. Believe me, it wouldn't go unnoticed and whoever actually proved it worked would become very famous.

No conspiracy would succeed for at least three reasons:

• 1. that's not how the medical system works in any way, shape, or form, since cures and discoveries are coveted and encouraged, regardless of their consequences for previous beliefs or procedures;
• 2. it would be impossible to keep secret;
• 3. medical personnel and their families get sick and would want to use it if it were truly a good thing.

-- Fyslee / talk 07:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. The part that generated my question was "patented and put in use a long time ago by the pharmaceutical industry." If I understand you correctly, the patent would not necessarily be held by the Pharma industry. Anthon01 (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point and very true. Often this kind of thing in one way or another does get tied in with the industry simply because they have so much money and technology, but of course that isn't always the case. -- Fyslee / talk 20:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:WINE newsletter

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue VIII - December 22nd, 2007

Happy holidays!

I hope the holidays are fun and enjoyable. I would like to take this time to thank you for all the help you have given me over the time I have been here. I wish you and your a very happy & healthy holiday. 2008 is around the corner and my hopes is that it brings a great year of happiness to you. Happy, Healthy Holiday! Happy editing, I'm sure I see you around.. --CrohnieGal 17:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays to you and your family. Anthon01 (talk) 08:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much to all of you great people. Let's all have a very happy holiday season. Take care. -- Fyslee / talk 17:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Fu Xi Wen

Hi - I saw your AN/I report about this - looks like a COI link. I Google search on ("Fu Xi Wen" +open +source) based on the description of the link added to the glossary shows this website: http://www.fuxiwen.com - the name of the owner of the website is Ethan Borg, like the user name Esborg (talk · contribs). The website strangely requires a legal agreement be accepted before viewing any of the additional pages so I stopped there. Per the user's talk page, Fu Xi Wen was speedy deleted in September. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that information. So much for my AGF! Ha! Would you please post the above to the ANI section? -- Fyslee / talk 06:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, done. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Fyslee / talk 06:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, well

Well, well, it looks like a new RFArb has been started against John Gohde, his third RFArb. This must be some kind of record:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/John_Gohde_2

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/John_Gohde_2/Evidence

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/John_Gohde_2/Workshop

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/John_Gohde_2/Proposed_decision

It is also interesting to note that it involves the same person and problems as in the very first RFArb at Misplaced Pages, which was raised by Jimbo Wales himself against John. -- Fyslee / talk 15:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Question on talk page format

Is there a guidline as to how talk page comments should flow. It seems like the talk pages are getting more and more difficult to follow because of comments being inserted every which way instead of following downward. Any suggestions on what works best? Anthon01 (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any particular talk page or comment(s) you are thinking of? Just provide the links and I'll look at it. In general new sections are always added at the bottom, unless they are new subsections to existing sections. New comments get added where they are relevant, and indenting should make it easy to see that they are new comments. There aren't many absolutes and one just needs to try and use common sense to avoid confusing others. Got some examples for me?-- Fyslee / talk 18:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A history of the Dawkins quote and merges

Here are some highlights:

• 08:22, April 28, 2004: The very first introduction of Dawkins quote (made in the Alternative medicine article) by User:Theresa Knott, TTBOMK,

• 10:35, May 15, 2004: Mr-Natural-Health (MNH) removed the Dawkins quote.

• 10:49, May 15, 2004: Restored and moved by David Gerard.

• 11:10, May 15, 2004: MNH removed the Dawkins quote.

Edit warring.....

• From May 20, 2004 and on a few days, MNH edit warred over the Dawkins quote, among other things. His edit summaries are worth noting.

• 15:21, June 24, 2004, MNH moved or copied an alternative medicine article to the Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) article, which was in its early stages. There had been agreement on a merge with the Alternative medicine article right from the beginning, but edit warring over redirecting to the Alternative medicine article, other articles, or a category, with MNH favorable to a merge, in contrast to his position now, where he has been fighting for having three unmerged articles and no redirects.

• 15:37, February 12, 2006: A merge tag was added to the CAM article by User:Fyslee, proposing a merge to the Alternative medicine article.

The history of the merge of all three articles into one Alternative medicine article is found on this version of the talk page, especially these sections:

• Complementary and Alternative Medicine?

• Complementary and Alternative Medicine are not the same. CAM deserves it's own page.

Unsigned comments by a supposed editor of a peer-reviewed medical journal. The comments are exactly the same wording as John Gohde has used many times.

• The information structure is important

Comments by a supposed editor of a peer-reviewed medical journal. The comments are exactly the same wording as John Gohde has used many times.

• Merged CAM to this article

• Merged Integrative Medicine into this article

There was obvious agreement to merge the related articles into the Alternative medicine article.

Originally MNH argued for merging the related articles into the Alternative medicine article:

• "Integrative, Alternative and Complementary Medicine all basically come under the same heading of Alternative medicine. Why not just improve the alternative medicine article?"--Mr-Natural-Health 13:13, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The first few sections in Archive 1 are very interesting regarding his thinking and demanding, even back then.

Later John Gohde was influential in supporting the removal of the redirect on the CAM article and reestablishing the article, and now we have three overlapping articles with lots of confusion.

His original comment "Integrative, Alternative and Complementary Medicine all basically come under the same heading of Alternative medicine. Why not just improve the alternative medicine article?" is exactly my sentiments as a solution to fixing the morass we are in. -- Fyslee / talk 07:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Orthomolecular psychiatry

Dear Fys, I explained in the talk page why I reject your recent edit in toto. Do let me know if you disagree, so that we can find a mutually agreeable solution. Cheers.--Alterrabe (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. I'll comment there. -- Fyslee / talk 08:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Refactoring

Would you be so kind enough to show me where to find the refactoring you mention On the ARB John Gohde 2 evidence page? Much appreciated as I am trying to keep up as an outsider to all of this, which has become quite confuseing to say the least, and put a comment together. --CrohnieGal 15:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

CAM RfC

If you believe that it should remain active then I will support that. I think the RfC's summary is inaccurate and should be rephrased. I don't think we are arguing about whether the tx are the same. I left a note on the CAM tp.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to alert you to this note. Anthon01 (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have been traveling and haven't always been in touch with a PC. I have now added some comments. -- Fyslee / talk 05:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:WINE newsletter

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue IX - January 7th, 2008

Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant quote from Levine2112

Levine2112 really hit the nail on the head here:

The point is that we can all present both (or more) sides of this topic if we resolve to use reliable sources and work together with civility. Misplaced Pages is not a scientific resource. It is an information resource. It is not a collection of facts. It is a collection of verifiable information. This means that there is room to present all notable POVs which are documented by a WP:RS, no matter how grotesque or absurd or offensive you and anyone else deems them to be. I know it can be frustrating, but please consider WP:NPOV. It will help. -- Levine2112 20:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

-- Fyslee / talk 01:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

How to create a good lead

(Just copying this here for my own reference.)

We need a decent lead for this article. I have a rule of thumb that ensures proper coverage in the WP:LEAD:

• If a topic deserves a heading, then it deserves short mention in the lead.

Here is a table we can use to help in creating and managing the lead. Just add the headings and create short summaries of the entire contents of the sections. The final result is created by placing all that content in one big paragraph in the order it is found in the table. Then make appropriate paragraphs out of it, and make appropriate changes so it flows as brilliant prose. Have fun! -- Fyslee/talk 19:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Each item should contain no more than one or two sentences that sum up the basic idea of each section in the article that has a heading. The whole thing can then be lumped together and divided up into two to four paragraphs.

There should not be anything in the lead that doesn't refer to specific content in the article. There should not be any elaboration or detail in the lead. Elaboration should be in the body of the article, not in the lead. Sum each section up in two to four sentences, and use them in the lead.

Keeping references out of the lead makes the lead easier to read. The explanatory and more detailed text with the refs are found in the article. I don't know of any policy or guideline regarding including refs in the lead, one way or the other, so it's a matter of taste....;-) Since refs are used to document specific content, and since the lead is a short summation in a generalized format, I would see the use of refs in the lead as a duplication of effort. If there are any refs in the lead, they should be kept to a minimum. If a ref is required in the lead, then that might be a symptom that something is being introduced there that is not in the body, which would be improper.

Because articles change and grow, the lead should reflect those changes and be revised accordingly.

Otherwise I think the lead should prepare the reader for whatever is in the body of the article. When they read the article they should not encounter any significant information that was not alluded to in the lead, IOW they should not be totally surprised. If they are then it should be mentioned in the lead.

Misplaced Pages articles should cover all notable aspects of a subject. When our readers have read an article and then talk to others about the subject, they should be able to always answer "Of course, I already read about that at Misplaced Pages." They should at least have a basic knowledge of all aspects of a subject, enough to discuss it and not be totally surprised by what someone else tells them. -- Fyslee/talk 19:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

CAM2

Please note that I left a message on the page at or near the bottom of this section. Anthon01 (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide me with the diff, so I can see exactly which one of your comments is the relevant one? BTW, thanks for the heads up. -- Fyslee / talk 02:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Here it is. It is actually the last comment in the section. Anthon01 (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. -- Fyslee / talk 03:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I responded. Anthon01 (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Chiro quotes

The continued use of the term "adjustment" implies the existence of (non-existent) chiropractic subluxations. The continued use of the title "DC" or "chiropractor" implies the manipulation of the spine to "correct a subluxation".

"Those who would allege that there IS something uniquely chiropractic must necessarily fall back on the "subluxation" theory of disease. In this regard, finding and removing these enigmatic entities is truly the only thing that the chiropractic camp can claim as its own. Even the term "adjustment" comes out of the subluxation idea. It is not simply synonym for manipulation, but carries the implication of subluxation.

"This idea is the only claim of uniqueness that chiropractic has. In fact, I've heard leaders of the ICA (Sid William's gang)say that if chiropractic loses the subluxation, it ceases to exist." - Bill Latanze, DC

"Crelin showed that one of the bedrock principles of chiropractic - the hypothesis that the vertebral pinching of spinal nerves impairs nerve functioning - is almost certainly invalid. Chiro-practic without this principle is analogous to meridianless acu-puncture." - Craig F. Nelson, DC

Craig Nelson could not have chosen a better analogy. Acupuncture "points", "meridians", and "chiropractic subluxations" have this in common: they do not exist as physical, biological entities, but are metaphysical beliefs. Their existence has never been proven. They are fantasies.

Acupuncture without the philosophy is needling. Manipulation without the philosophy isn't adjustment. Chiropractic without subluxations isn't chiropractic. -- Fyslee / talk 03:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This is completely absurd. Maybe this is the case in the United States, however your northern neighbour makes no such claims. The Philosophy of Chiropractic far exceeds a modality (manual/mechanical manipulation) and a lesion (vertebral subluxation/joint dyskinesis). It is about a holistic approach to health care using natural therapies primarily (joint manipulation, soft tissue manipulation exercise, nutritional counseling, medical acupuncturestress management, health promotion, ergonomic consulting, etc. To insinuate that the existence of the profession depends on subluxations is a dated, narrowed view of Contemporary Chiropractic.

Also, anyone who knows a lick of neurology realizes that there neurophysiological effects of manipulation and, similarly, there are neurophysiological effects of joint dyskinesis/subluxation. However, these are being taken in a neuromusculoskeletal context now as well as possible autonomic implications on visceral functions that may arise from chronic NMS pain syndromes. This is a contemporary view of the profession.

The title DC or chiropractor certainly does not imply manipulation for subluxation. Again, a narrowed view focus. Rather we are holistic NMS doctors with an emphasis on manual therapies and other complementary therapies. We;re not wannabe MDs or "glorified PTs". DCs trained in scientific schools are perfectly positioned to play a crucial role in managing and preventing NMS issues and PCP role.

I would encourage you, Fyslee, to visit the CCA website or the new OCA one and you tell me that my sole purpose is to rid subluxations. It is, at least in Canada, a dying faction as CMCC and UQTR embrance scientific chiropractic and not traditional/philosophical (straight) chiropractic.

http://www.chiropractic.on.ca

It is always important to have different perspectives on issues to remain objective. I am not an evangelist (as a good analogy to the straights/subluxation based) and definitely have my criticisms with my profession, but it's mainly a generational thing. The evidence-based Doctor of Chiropractic in 2008 is not tied down to the philosophy of subluxations (metaphysically) or at least in Canada (my POV which conflicts with your chiropractic POV which is US and not a world wide one.

In fact, every DC since 2002 has been educated in the integrative EBM curriculum (CMCC is 45 minutes away from McMaster University, where evidence based medicine was born) Canada, unlike the US has NO subluxation based schools and they are both university degree granting institutions. This is important because credits obtained at CMCC and UQTR can be TRANSFERRED to public universities unlike before.

In the end, Fyslee, you will begin to appreciate the sophistication of contemporary chiropractors. Most of us have 4 year undergrad degrees in kinesiology of the life sciences and obtain various other treatment modalities (soft tissue such as ART/Graston/SASTM, get diplomas in Medical Acupuncture from McMaster University by the Department of Anaesthesia from MDs who designed the course from a anatomy/neurophysiological POV, obtained CSCS designations from the NSCA (http://www.nsca-cc.org/) etc.

I am anxious to hear your response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.89.150 (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

208.101.89.150 (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I understand that there is a difference between many Canadian chiros (a small minority in the profession), and the large majority of other chiros, especially in the USA. That's quite positive. After all, it was Ron Carter, the Past President of the Canadian Chiropractic Association who basically wrote that belief in the so-called "killer subluxation" was actually what was killing the profession, not killing the patient. He described it as the "Achilles Heel of our profession." Very insightful and surprising, considering it was coming from a leader. To my knowledge no such statement has come from American top leaders. Even the schools still officially hold to a subluxation paradigm. So things are indeed different between Canada and the USA, but there are still many (if not a majority) of Canadian chiros who believe in subluxations. It takes time to change these things.

BTW, it may seem easy to assert that Canadian chiropractic and education is different and much better. While that is partially true, realities don't paint such a clear picture. An example is the quack Activator device. The Chiropractic Association of Saskatchewan once did a positive thing and forbad its use there, but that has since been rescinded, IOW a step backwards. That's unfortunate, so you've got some work to do, so don't give up!

Notice that above I am quoting chiropractors. I get pretty much all my information from chiropractic sources. You should buy the latest edition of Skeptical Inquirer, which has two articles on chiropractic and one on homeopathy. I think you might find them interesting.

I know and respect a number of chiropractors who are skilled clinicians who help many people. My objections are to the foundational beliefs of the profession, which are out of sync with the beliefs with a growing number of the younger generation of the profession. I'm well aware that there are educational improvements being made, and that's a good thing. BTW I am not very active on these matters any more, don't participate in discussion groups, don't maintain my website, etc.. They just sit there collecting dust. -- Fyslee / talk 17:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If needling has the same effects as acupuncture, do we call it acupuncture, or do we call it needling with metaphysical results? ;-) ---- Dēmatt (chat) 01:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Good question...;-)! Since acupuncture is a healing system consisting of techniques, a philosophy, and an understanding of anatomy that doesn't jibe with reality, any totally proven physiological effects of sticking needles into people would have to be reexplained in terms of real anatomy, without resorting to explaining it in terms of the four elements, meridians, and acupuncture points. If something really is going on, and some research seems to indicate that occasionally, maybe, something is going on (but not quite sure what), it should be possible to document it in a manner so convincing that most mainstream scientists will accept it. We haven't gotten there yet. I am leaving the door open, since there obviously is some type of influence on tissues and nerves that can happen, and therefore the possibility is open for results, hopefully some of which will be positive and useful, but not necessarily. The question of exactly "why" it happens is another matter. Use can be justified, based solely on proven efficacy and a positive risk/benefit ratio. With time the true explanations of why it works will come. That's the way it has often been with other therapies.

But as far as acupuncture goes, with its philosophy, unreal anatomy, and metaphysical ideas, we can toss them out the window with impunity, and without blinking an eye. It would have to take extremely strong evidence to convince scientists that meridians and acupuncture points exist as physical entities. It just hasn't happened yet, and histology is a rather advanced science. In the meantime we can perform research using needles and see what happens. That is happening, but so far without any exciting results that I know of. Nothing earth shaking is going on. It's sort of like the claims made for life after death and ghosts. They claim that a spirit can shake a table, make it cold in a room, make noises, make what might somehow appear to be a shadowlike face appear in a photograph of a lampshade, etc., but nothing of worth is really being told, done, or experienced. More gets accomplished by ignoring it and using real science to move forward in other areas.

BTW, there are two articles on chiropractic and one on homeopathy in the latest Skeptical Inquirer. You can probably get it at any Barnes and Noble or other book store. -- Fyslee / talk 03:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you think meditation has health benefits comparable to say, exercise? ---- Dēmatt (chat) 03:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it has some forms of health benefits, especially as stress relief, which in turn has other beneficial effects. Meditation has many forms, from thinking about nothing, to thinking about nonsense, to concentrating on certain themes that produce solutions to problems. I can imagine that different forms of meditation can produce different results. -- Fyslee / talk 04:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The National Council Against Health Fraud

Hi Fyslee,

Realizing it's probably a contentious page, would I be stepping on toes by a) pointing out the first reference on the The National Council Against Health Fraud page, pointing out that it is a non-profit agency, is somewhat silly and b) pointing out that the link itself isn't a good one because it's login-only? I'd normally just remove it, but sometimes the skepticism pages attract a lot of hostile traffic. Thanks, WLU (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I can understand what you mean about it being "somewhat silly," but these types of contentious articles often include details that would otherwise seem unnecessary, precisely because of their contentious editing history. The demands of critics often mean that notability issues and other details need to be bolstered with very clear references. In the case of the NCAHF and Stephen Barrett articles are constantly attacked by editors who believe in conspiracy theories, so their theories have to be punctured with the truth, which can be found and documented. That may be why this is written as it is, but it still seems rather clumsy to me. Maybe we could improve the flow by including a few words in the references, instead of in the lead itself. That way no information is lost and it will read better. What do you think about the matter? I haven't been following along there for some time, and the last edits I made a long time ago were very insignificant. -- Fyslee / talk 01:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I was just wondering about the article history, I think my preference would be to just re-write and move references out of the lead. I think it's a silly thing to have to reference, but I know that it's sometimes necessary. But is non-profit status really that controversial? As is, the reference in its current incarnation is useless unless you've a membership to the linking site. I think I may take the direct approach and ask on the talk page. If it's that contentious, I'd rather start on the talk page I think. Thanks for the reply, if I've need of your expertise I may re-visit (and natch, if you notice I've messed up the page please fix it!) WLU (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

This is to inform you that you have been included as a party in a request for Arbitration here ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Stealth change to inclusion criteria?

Have a look at talk here. I don't believe expanding the list's second tier to include anything beyond "a statement by a group" was ever discussed. best regards, Jim Butler 08:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! The RfC is spot-on and very timely. --Jim Butler 07:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

... although I don't see it showing up at WP:RFC/SCI, weird. --Jim Butler 08:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That gets done by a bot. I don't know how many times a day it checks, but it will show up there. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to make sure I understand. You would like the Psuedo page to include all subjects claimed to be pseudoscience regardless of notablility? THat would include charges made by little know skeptic groups and individuals? Anthon01 (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

We need to follow inclusion criteria policy. Article content require V & RS, no matter who the source might be. If they are published in a V & RS, then they would nearly always be allowable. Crackpots and off-the-wall types will often fail on this count. Notability factors in because that's what gets them published in the first place, so notability is a factor, but not the only one.

As to the title, the title needs to be NPOV and it isn't. -- Fyslee / talk 17:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying that Jim's objection above where he states "a statement by a group" is the inclusion criteria, are you suggesting that changing the title will allow you to include "a statement by individuals?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what happened?

I am trying to figure out what happened to push Avb into retirement. Two other editors also retired on the same day. If you have any ideas or reasons for Avb leaving, I would appreciate it. Obviously, you are welcomed to do this via email. Thanks, --CrohnieGal 15:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I have no idea what happened. Who are the other two editors? -- Fyslee / talk 02:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Email on it's way. Do you know if Avb got stuck in this mess? I think it had to do with fringe editors and this looks like a possible place. I am just now trying to figure out all of what happened here. --CrohnieGal 12:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)