User talk:Drcrazy102/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Drcrazy102. 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.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Transcendental_Meditation

Dear Doctor Crazy,

May I ask you if I am allowed to add something about the discussion and where to put some more comments?

I would like to add one missing point and make one emphasis:

1 - I don't know why they always forget to show the second part of the conclusion, here is the entire text [1]

As the abstract says : "Among behavioral therapies, Transcendental Meditation (Class IIB, Level of Evidence B), other meditation techniques (Class III, Level of Evidence C), yoga (Class III, Level of Evidence C), other relaxation therapies (Class III, Level of Evidence B), and biofeedback approaches (Class IIB, Level of Evidence B) generally had modest, mixed, or no consistent evidence demonstrating their efficacy."

Some more details are provided in the conclusion concerning the behavioral therapies (page 6): "Summary and Clinical Recommendations - The overall evidence supports that TM modestly lowers BP. It is not certain whether it is truly superior to other meditation techniques in terms of BP lowering because there are few head-to-head studies. As a result of the paucity of data, we are unable to recommend a specific method of practice when TM is used for the treatment of high BP. However, TM (or meditation techniques in general) does not appear to pose significant health risks.32 Additional and higher-quality studies are required to provide conclusions on the BP-lowering efficacy of meditation forms other than TM. The writing group conferred to TM a Class IIB, Level of Evidence B recommendation in regard to BP-lowering efficacy.

Second part of the conclusion: TM may be considered in clinical practice to lower BP. Because of many negative studies or mixed results and a paucity of available trials, all other meditation techniques (including MBSR) received a Class III, no benefit, Level of Evidence C recommendation Thus, other meditation techniques are not recommended in clinical practice to lower BP at this time"

And there are also other references concerning the same subject that I mentioned in the chapter "References that should not be ignored or deleted on TM page" of the TM talk page.

Despite the fact that TM has got here a Class IIB, Level of Evidence B, which is the best among the behavioral therapies, they claim on the beginning of the "Health effects" chapter that : "It is currently not possible to say whether meditation has any effect on health, as the research to date has been of poor quality"

2 - And I would like make one emphasis: Scientific peer reviewed articles are independent reliable sources. Shortcut WP:MEDSCI and WP:MEDASSESS

Best regards Jdontfight (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The DRN has ended ? And it advises to go to Requests_for_comment? Would you advise me to follow that? Please share your thoughts? Best regards Jdontfight (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Has there been some underground discussion to make it end like this? May you please enlighten me on that point? Best regards Jdontfight (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, volunteers of the DRN can decline cases because there may not have been enough discussion and this can be done without prior notice. I felt there was enough, if only just enough; TransporterMan felt that there was not enough and that the discussion was below the minimum mark for potential case-acceptance at the DRN.
Secondly, Volunteers may make recommendations for how to resolve the dispute by using consensus. The main venue for achieving such consensus is through a WP:Request for Comment being used on the talkpage when there is a clear dispute. If the other editors wish, I can try to draft an RfC, help in setting it up and "advertising" the RfC without canvassing. Hope this helps you and the others find a resolution Jdontfight. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 07:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes even when there is adequate discussion, we'll refer a case back to discussion for additional discussion. As the good Dr. C says, this one was right on the edge, but there were other elements involved that suggested that additional discussion was needed and/or that there was going to be a problem with keeping it at DRN. One was that this was a single editor opposed by five or six other editors — Yobol, MastCell, Doc James, Alexbrn, Ronz, and Littleoliveoil — and there was a real question about whether there was even a dispute at all or whether consensus had already coalesced against him or her, settling the dispute. Another was that a volunteer had taken and opened the case before all parties had made opening statements and that the volunteer was very inexperienced, not only at DRN but also at Wikipedia in general, and was raising issues which had not been raised by the parties (which isn't always inappropriate, but seemed to have no reason in this case) and making statements which seemed to indicate a lack of knowledge of Wikipedia policy and, in turn, an inability to properly evaluate the consensus issue, which would have been the first thing which needed to be done. In short, it was a marginal case to begin with and was rapidly turning into a boondoggle and needed to go. Inadequate discussion was just the biggest problem. I recommended an RFC because that would clarify the consensus issue, even though I'm strongly suspicious that consensus has already been reached. Rather than go through the long process of a RFC, requesting a consensus evaluation through AN might resolve the issue more quickly. Best regards — and apologies to Dr. C for contradicting him so abruptly, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Writes down "boondoggle" for future use. *hears name called* No worries TransporterMan, as mentioned, it was marginal and I understood the reasoning. I would still offer to help with the RfC if needed Jdontfight, however WP:AN may be easier and faster ... I just haven't tried using it yet but I'd defer to TM's experience on this. Cheers all, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help, I was going through the WP pages related to WP:Request for Comment, ... everything was not very clear to me (like "Publicizing an RfC" without Wikipedia:Canvassing?). And the point raised by TransporterMan is fundamental: if we need a consensus, it might be difficult to get it without proper specialist of WP sourcing and references, because in fact, this is all the question and the opposition. Which are the sources to be used in this scientific chaper of "Health effects". So warm thanks to you both. I will read the AN page. Please let me know if you have further suggestions or ideas. All the best to you Jdontfight (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:TransporterMan and @User:Drcrazy102: How could we make it? How to ask? Asking "Scientific references specialists to tell if those references are suitable or not?" Jdontfight (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Aloysius Stepinac

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Aloysius Stepinac. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Poland

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Poland. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Guide bar

Hello Drcrazy102. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Guide bar, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The page has both context and content. Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)