User talk:Valjean/Archive 3

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Archive 3
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10 Reply to Mccready's email See my response to Mccready's unblock request by email. [1] Hope this helps since nothing else has so far. Take care, FloNight 22:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC) Your edits to hernia Thanks for your edits to hernia. Great Spinal disc herniation article, however instead of redirecting to it like you did, I think it's best to propose a merger. After all the information is completely moved, you may replace the original articles by a redirect, and check for double redirects.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Hi Steven. I'd appreciate any advise and help you can provide. I'm sure there's a proper way to delete the two articles that are now obsolete, and leave redirects there. What is the proper procedure? Should I request that they be deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion)? I'll take a look there now. -- Fyslee 19:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Changing language varients Hi there, I've noticed that you've made a few changes ([2], [3], [4], and about 20 further ones) of spelling of the word "libellous" to "libelous" in some articles (i.e., from British English to American English); I'm sorry to say that this is actually a prohibited activity (because it's of very little worth to the project, and often kick-starts wars over which language varient is "better"). I have seen your comment that: Since Wikipedia has such a great impact on knowledge and spelling, we should attempt to make sure we do things in the best, and in this case the most common, manner. Erroneous (or less preferable) spellings or misleading expressions should be corrected and pointed out throughout Wikipedia, not treated as if they are inconsequential [5] ... but sadly you are not backed-up by (very long-standing) policy. I have taken the trouble of undoing your actions. Yours, James F. (talk) 10:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC) Thanks for your concern. I only later discovered that I had apparently changed some British-related articles, which was wrong according to Wikipedia policy. The other changes were appropriate and shouldn't be reverted. -- Fyslee 10:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC) Spondylolisthesis Hi there; I must apologise for not replying earlier to your comments made on the article's talk page. I am ashamed to say that I only just found them. "Centrum" was correct usage in the UK for the vertebral body when I trained, which was in the 1960s. If you tell me that the term is now archaic I will not contest the point! I am not certain that your statement that spondylolisthesis can cause spinal stenosis is correct. Cauda equina syndrome, certainly. But spinal stenosis is most common in the cervical spine, where spondylolisthesis is almost unknown. Granted that spondylolisthesis at T12-L1 or L1-L2 may compress the lowest part of the spinal cord just above the cauda equina (although the preceding nerve root pressure will cause most sufferers to seek medical help at an earlier stage), I have not previously seen this type of compression described as spinal stenosis.--Anthony.bradbury 11:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC) You may be correct, but I'm not sure. I'll have to admit that the most common location I've heard of was lumbar, but it certainly can happen in the cervical spine. (That's just my experience.) The queen of Denmark was operated a couple years ago for lumbar spinal stenosis caused by osteoarthritis. In the lumbar spine one could sometimes describe it as a cauda equina syndrome, but that would be a very specific set of symptoms, and not just the usual non-vascular claudication symptoms common to spinal stenosis. (There's a good chance I have it, and I'm in the middle of a series of tests to make a certain diagnosis. Already had a non-functional MR scan, which was inconclusive. They should have saved time and done a functional one.) Maybe the devil is in the details: If spinal stenosis refers to a diminishment of the size of the spinal canal, regardless of cause, and cauda equina syndrome refers to a specific set of symptoms caused by pressure on the cauda equina, regardless of cause, then a spinal stenosis could cause cauda equina syndrome, but not all cauda equina syndromes are caused by spinal stenosis, and not all lumbar spinal stenosis causes cauda equina syndrome. (Does that make any sense to you? I'm dizzy!) I've done a quick Google search: Google: "spinal stenosis" cervical lumbar Spinal Stenosis - Lumbar and Cervical The article needs much more information. I have been busy with the chiropractic articles, which is an area I enjoy. Quackery is a special interest of mine. -- Fyslee 12:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC) I agree to the edit counter opt-in terms edit counter Hulda Regehr Clark dear Fyslee ! I am german and I make sometimes edits in en-wp in germany/medicine-related articles. (see Ehrenfried Pfeiffer Günther Enderlein, my last edits here) Unfortunately, my English is not the best. Saw your edits in the Clark-article. I was looking a long time for background info and references to that woman and her claims, and I added some stuff to our german article. See: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulda_Clark She has some limited popularity also over here, at least in some particular circles, where chemtrails, colloidal silver, conspiracy theories and Ryke Geerd Hamers new germanic medicine are accepted. (often with a particlar political orientation). What I want to tell you: the concepts of Clark are much stranger and pseudoscientific than reported in the actual article here. So I would like to add some statements if her into the claims-part of the article. in her book "The Cure For All Cancers" she postulates that all types of cancers are caused by flatworm Fasciolopsis Buski (see Fasciolopsiasis). The problem is however that F.Buski is unknown in USA or Europe for instance. F.Buski is a danger in India, China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Thailand, and some other smaller countries, and there only in rural areas where people are eating not-boiled food from water plants or where pigs live close to men. But why should we Europeans or Americans get cancer then ? And she claims to be able to cure 95% of all cancer cases. HIV: she says: ,,I find it (=F.Buski) in every case of HIV, Alzheimer's disease.....Without this parasite you can't get the HIV virus...in her opinion HIV is a worm's virus. Depression is caused by hookworms: ....All persons I have seen with clinical depression had small roundworms in the brain. (she is talking about hookworms here) I will try to add some of her claims into this article, can you please check for spelling errors and an evenual non neutral point of view according to en-wp rules ? regards, michael Redecke 12:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Hi Michael, It would be great if you added to the article. You are correct about her wild claims. This article is very tame, and it needs to include her wildest claims. I know quite a bit about her, and have been sued by her, along with a lot of other people, but when it was time for the trial, she dropped the charges. They were bogus charges without any relation to reality, but just created to irritate us. You can read the cross-complaint here. -- Fyslee 17:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC) I will take a closer look to that link tomorrow. btw: the resposible for european clark-business is german speaking david amrein, a scientologist. [6] [7] [8] I think he lives in switzerland where the clark-zapper is not allowed. If you have anything new about Hulda to add to our de-wp, do not hesitate to send me a message. you can reach me on de-wp under the same username. CU ! michael Redecke 22:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC) hi Fyslee! email. i am just trying to send you an email. regards michael Redecke 14:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC) Up Late? Wow, You must be up late... I never see you this time of night! Can't sleep? --Dematt 04:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC) Nope, up early! It's 6 AM here. I see that a certain editor who likes to speak of "hate" and "bigotry" is still trying to suppress reality about POV he doesn't like. Your new section may be a good solution. His continued effort to move the "Advocacy" heading is a transparent effort to make the "Critiques" section look larger, while his "duh!" comment is a recognition that chiropractic organizations are (of course) advocacy organizations, and thus they belong under that heading. He's pretty transparent in his sneakiness! -- Fyslee 05:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC) What a way to start your day! I guess I'm not normally up this late - It's Labor Day over here (yeah) I'm taking the day off, but it looks like I'm going to sleep it off if I don't go to bed! I would like to see some articles that have something nice to say about chiropractic at the bottom. Not the usual "selling blah" or testimonials, just something that may defend some of the contoversial issues in a scholarly way. --Dematt 05:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC) That would be a good idea. There are plenty of good articles out there that are pretty neutral. I have to run now, but I just noticed the x-ray comment at the VS article. Is that even true at all? One gets the impression that chiropractors developed the x-ray! -- Fyslee 05:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC) OR and other erroneous interpretations Definition: Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material placed in articles by Wikipedia users that has not been previously published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished material, for example, arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories, or any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, that would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". The ABMS data in the article is 1- is taken from a reliable source 2- has been previously published 3- is not a theory 4- is not an argument or an analysis It is simply a fact that is real and referenced from a reliable, reputable site. So does not fit the definition of OR as per Wikipedia. It is also highly relevant, it is factual and neutral information directly related to the item at hand. The reader can draw their own conclusions once they are provided with correct, verifiable, relevant information. That is what an encyclopedia does. Also the deletion of posting on the Barrett talk page is a wrong interpretation of Wiki policy that applies to the article itself. Please refrain from applying your unilateral interpretation of Wiki rules. Finally citing the point of view of notable critics when it is properly referenced is fully acceptable, Whether you do not like the point of view or not. NATTO 13:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC) Skepticism and Scientific skepticism pages They really do need a lot of work. A LOT. They're pretty crappy right now. Spread the word among fellow skeptics that these page need work. I've tried to do a bit, but I really don't know what to do for the most part. --Havermayer 04:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Chiropractic list Don't give up on it right away. I am trying to find a way to keep the list- and possibly grow it - without everything getting deleted. I'm not giving up. I'm not above going on compromise either (especially with you....;-), but I'm very much against compromising with those who, against Wikipedia rules and ideals, attempt to suppress opposing viewpoints, whether it's by directly removing stuff, or by watering it down, or by making it less visible. What's happening now fulfills their agenda by making the criticisms less visible, right in their own space, where they should be safeguarded and shielded from outside interference, especially from opponents. It sets a precedent that if opposers are violent enough in their protests, they will get their way, even going so far as to be able to choose what descriptive words should be visible. I say they shouldn't have any say in the matter at all. That should be done by parties who are neutral, who have proven they support NPOV by being inclusionists, or have the same POV as the links section involved. We're experiencing the same thing with the reformers section and the mention of the NACM. Steth has previously been blocked twice for revert warring in his deletionist attempts. He, a true believer, is meddling in someone else's territory. The other groupings are allowed to have descriptions of which associations they tend to belong to, even though a majority of chiropractors are not member of any association, and the WCA doesn't open its membership lists or disclose its numbers. But the reformers mustn't have any description, because that would mean mentioning the NACM, and he's allergic to the idea that criticism might exist at all. I feel that some of Gleng's arguments amount to caving in to bad behavior, and rewarding it by an appeasement policy. Steth's and Levine2112's behavior (but especially Steth's) have been so bad that I place them in the same category as Mccready - they should be watched closely and usually deleted on sight. I don't do that, but it would be the proper thing to do until they learn to behave nicely and become inclusionists, instead of respectively trying to either create a chiropractic sales brochure, or trying to reduce the article to more criticism than presentation of facts about both POV. I find it discouraging when you and Gleng actually pat Steth on the back, in spite (and sometimes as a reward for) his attrocious behavior. Why attack Mccready for his lack of collaborative spirit, and then reward Steth? Something smells.... I would expect you to also try to educate and discipline him when necessary, instead of just letting him trounce all over me and others. Excuse me for rambling on, but I'm appealing for some support and fairness here. -- Fyslee 17:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC) I understand your feelings, and I have intervened in your support on several occasions. I think though that there is a big difference between what Steth says on Talk pages and what he does on articles; and if we assume good faith persistently we have to take each case on its merits, and acknowledge when something is right just as we dissent when it's wrong. An opinion prejudged isn't worth hearing, and my friends can be wrong and my enemies right (without meaning to imply that I have either friends or enemies). In my world, peer review is an ego bruising process, and the best way to survive it is to believe that the sharpest critics are in the end your best friends, and that anyone who finds any weakness in your logic or evidence does you a favour.Gleng 11:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Steth's Barnstar Steth's Barnstar was for debunking highly disguised and dubious OR. You would have been proud of him, too, if you were there. If we allow that kind of research, WP means nothing to anybody, because anything can be written about anything. I think we both agree on that. I'll certainly never use OR when Steth is around! I tried to follow along, but probably missed something. It looked to me like Steth ignored the explanations of the confusion and went straight for the throat with his accusations of lying, when misunderstandings would have been a more appropriate explanation. I never saw any evidence of deliberate lying, but rather of some mistakes. Whatever the case, Steth has done that before in much less aggravating situations, with less evidence of wrongdoing. He's simply very aggressive in his defense of chiropractic. -- Fyslee 17:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Oh, No,, that was at least the 5th or 6th time he tried to push his OR as reliable and from verifiable sources. Most of it comes from books that are not online. We had to do lots of labor only to find out that the author didn't say anything like was written. But that didn't stop him. Even Gleng tried to get through to him, but to no avail. Somebody had to expose him and Steth did. I would not have used the same language, but hopefully he'll stop using OR. --Dematt 17:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Please, you both don't have to thank me, it was my pleasure! Really. Imagine, a Barnstar! Me! Who would have thought? Steth 02:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC) No Fyslee, whatever Steth's excesses in the past, in this case he was an absolute star, and we should give credit where credit is due; I was ready to give him a barnstar myself for his rigorous attention to the verifiability and reliability of sources. There is no doubt that this is not a case of misunderstanding by KV, but of outright deception. I'm posting the full details of the case soon. We have to have integrity here; if we accuse chiropractic of being remiss in pursuing frauds and charlatans within its ranks, we had better be no less acute in dealing with beams in our own eyes. I am far angrier with a scientist who abuses trust and integrity. Gleng 10:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Then I must have missed something. I wasn't following the case very closely, and missing even a single entry can mean alot. I certainly wasn't supportive of the inclusion of any off-beat example of some chiro who might happen to treat homosexuality with adjustments. That would be very atypical, and no profession is free from goofballs. I don't judge chiropractic or any other profession by such cases. So even if it were true, it wouldn't be worthy of inclusion. I sure wish I had access to the source material, as Steth apparently had. I could only find an abstract. Do you have a URL I can use? -- Fyslee 10:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC) see [9]Gleng 11:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC) I remember the part about the Christianson reference. At the time it looked like KV was admitting to using the wrong source by mistake, and was in effect correcting his error. That made it look unfair of Steth to continue to hold him accountable for an error anyone could make. Since I never did understand the case as well as you guys that were involved, I'll stay out of it. You're doing a fine job. KV may be doing the same thing that Mccready does - make skeptics look bad. That's why I haven't supported Mccready for a long time. -- Fyslee 11:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Yes, I guess I'm wound up because he's effectively accused me of being part of a pro PS censorship conspiracy; I've shrugged off a spleen of invective from homeopaths with good humour, but this got to me I'm afraid. We have to be clean as clean can be, and open about inconvenient facts, or why should anyone listen to scientists. We start using the rhetorical tricks and devices of frauds then we're no better. -- Gleng 13:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Yes, I noticed that. I don't remember if I replied to defend you, but I thought about it. He (and Mccready) fails to understand why a skeptic who is against quackery, can "side with" a quack in an edit war, simply based on following Wikipedia's rules. I often allow misleading information to be included in the chiro articles, simply because there is no Wikipedia rule to prevent it. That's life. You are so right about keeping clean ourselves. We mustn't sink to the lowest common denominator (the only one some of these people know), although it is tempting at times, and I'm not perfect in that area. I've had to apologize more than once, but that's the only proper thing to do. -- Fyslee 15:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Thanks, but no I don't need or expect defending, you have more important things to do with your time, and I don't need to be reassured that friends are friends. I prefer it when you correct me when I'm wrong. ;)Gleng 12:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC) We all have a right to get wound up, and to let it out. We are all only human. --Dematt 16:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC) True enough. Just as long as it doesn't become a habit. -- Fyslee 17:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Dr. Sahelian Fyslee. It is Sahelian who says it and that is what the reference shows. It is in the section Accusations of bias and conspiracy. I think that Dr. Sahelian is very polite in his wording , certainly a lot more than the e-mail Barrett sent him, by the way. Whether Barrett has used those exact words is irrelevant. Barrett says a lot of things and I am not going to read everything he says or write to find out if it is true that Barrett has used those exact words. The bottom line is Barrett is not fair and objective in his criticism and he has admitted as much when he wrote " But quackery and fraud don't involve legitimate controversy and are not balanced subjects. I don't believe it is helpful to publish "balanced" articles about unbalanced subjects. Do you think that the press should enable rapists and murderers to argue that they provide valuable services? ". Of course Barrett decides what is quackery so in the end he can be " unbalanced " about what ever he chooses, because according to the " Master " alternative medicine is all quackery. Homeopath, chiropractors ect... are thus compared to rapists and murderers... No need for objectivity here, Hum. I think Dr. Sahelian is indeed very polite. By the way if Barrett does not claim to be a true objective scientist, it would be great if you could quote him saying that he is not objective and a not a scientist. Then he could stop judging what is acceptable scientific evidence and what is not. NATTO 00:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC) I've never heard him claim to be a scientist. He is an MD and consumer advocate, specializing in healthcare fraud. Some scientists are MDs, but comparatively few MDs are scientists. -- Fyslee 12:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Spinal manipulation I know you are busy on the Barrett page, but when you feel you have some time, see what you think about the re-arrangements and changes on the Spinal adjustment Page. --Dematt 14:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC) I have just taken a look. Your edits certainly improved things! I did a bit myself. Now it looks like I've been invited to make a comment at the Barrett page. Join in. -- Fyslee 18:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC) I've watched some, but I'm trying to stay out of that one. It would be hard for me to stay neutral over there and so much of it is personal he said she said stuff. Not to mention he tends to make my life harder. Too close to home for me;) --Dematt 03:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC) Second opinion re: Barrett Hi Fyslee, I have invited TimVickers and Peter_morrell to give their opinion on the Barrett page. FYI, I feel that they represent both sides of the spectrum with respect to alternative medicine. David D. (Talk) 17:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Discussion located here -- Fyslee 07:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC). Fyslee. I hope this issue ( the relevance of the ABMS data ) is now resolved even if the other editor invited by David declined to participate. I have also posted comments on the Barrett talk page regarding two edits that you have made in the article. One is about the Mercola lawsuit and the other about comments by judges. Your reply would be appreciated. NATTO 00:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC) VS edit I'm certainly not supporting the VS claims, in fact I'm just pointing out the weakness of the statement; obviously a spinal misalignment will cause symptoms; don't see how you could call it a misalignment otherwise. I.e. If there is nerve compression through misalignment, and that's my understanding of a misalignment, then clearly it will cause symptoms. This much seems uncontroversial. Whether such misalignments are a common cause of disease and especially of diseases not obviously related to the spine is clearly controversial, and of this I'm skeptical as you'd expect. However, the statement as phrased, as I had previously discussed on the Talk page, is uncontroversial but is essentially empty, and I had proposed modifying it to give it content. But as a bland statement I didn't consider it particularly objectionable per se. The sentence as phrased intoduces the term VS as purely a definition of spinal misalignment, so omitting it doesn't change the meaning. I objected to Mccready's edit as it introduced an assertion with content but no V RS to counterpoint a rather bland and neutral statement. It seemed inappropriate Gleng 19:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC) I think we're both irritated with Mccready's way of editing, and of course even "the truth" must be presented using V RS. My concerns are about the statement itself, in its reduced form, which isn't true at all, IF you understand what chiropractors mean when they say it. 99.9% of the time there is no objective misalignment, by any medical standard, and often no symptoms. IOW a radiologist wouldn't see anything worth noting that wasn't within the normal ROM. Here is the statement, with the important parts, which seriously affect the meaning: Chiropractic's premise is that spinal joint misalignments, which chiropractors call vertebral subluxations, can interfere with the nervous system and result in diminished health. ( This part has earlier been there, and should be restored in one way or other: Belief in vertebral subluxation should not be confused with orthopedic subluxation. ) When the first phrase is included, it is NPOV, but the rest of the sentence then sells the idea to the reader, who is left in a position that inevitably leads them to believe it. Since what follows is untrue, it needs the skeptical/medical POV, to alert the reader that not all is well in chiroland, accordign to the rest of the healthcare system. An earlier version: Chiropractors believe that alleged spinal joint misalignments, which they call vertebral subluxations, can interfere with the body's self-regulating mechanisms via the nervous system, resulting in bodily dysfunction. (That "alleged" is important. This discussion is important.) Part of the problem is that these earlier skeptical NPOV modifications have been removed, leaving the statement as if the VS was identical to the orthopedic subluxation, which is far from the truth. This type of obfuscation is quite typical in public places like Wikipedia, or in official communications with authorities and newpapers. They disguise the true nature of the VS, and such disguises must not be allowed to occur here uncommented. NPOV requires that the skeptical POV be part of that statement, otherwise it becomes a sales argument for chiropractic. Now if that statement were written by and about a medical "subluxation," (which is what your "skeletonized" version is) it would be a very different matter. It really is a misalignment, objectively verifiable and symptomatic. BUT, the statement is about a chiropractic vertebral subluxation, as the statement clearly indicated, which makes it a very different matter. The article isn't just a presentation of chiropractic, or just the chiropractic POV, but is about the "subject" of chiropractic, from all POV, and thus the medical objections and skeptical viewpoints need to be included, including that medical science does not endorse the concept of the VS (it ignores it, since medical science doesn't waste time on unproven beliefs, which even chiropractors admit is only a euphemism), since it rarely involves objectively verifiable subluxations, but nearly always is asymptomatic, not objectively verifiable, and its presence is usually determined by the declaration of the chiropractor, and believed by well-indoctrinated patients. It's a different animal. The subject was not medical subluxations, but chiropractic VS, and should be edited in that light, which requires modifying statements from skeptics to NPOV it. They just need to be from V RS, and the concept shouldn't be defended by skeptics, MDs, or scientists on the talk pages. The problems have been confounded by Mccready's too bold editing and lack of collaborative spirit, but his points about including the skeptical POV are usually correct. It's just his way of doing it that's a problem. -- Fyslee 21:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC) I am happy with any version similar to the one before Mccready messed with it last month: Chiropractic contends that spinal joint misalignments, which chiropractors call vertebral subluxations, can interfere with the nervous system and result in diminished health. This differentiates chiropractic's vertebral subluxation from other forms of subluxation. But Mccready won't go for it. The only instances for which I have seen Mccready use the word "belief" is only meant in an ad hominem, POV and non-informative purpose. Used properly, it is appropriate. Glengs definition of VS is just as valid as orthopedic subluxation and could be seen as a subset of VS. There is no belief involved there. This could be what 90% of chiropracors are thinking when they say VS. Certainly, VS in the mind of the straight is a matter of belief. Unless we can explain that in the first sentence, I don't think it is appropriate to use "belief" to explain it. --Dematt 00:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC) You are of course both discussing this coolly and sensibly from a huge reservoir of knowledge. I'm afraid I don't have that knowledge. My comments and edits in this case were based on natural reading and logical structure. Consider a different example "Christians contend that Christ in the Son of God." What sources are needed here? If challenged, a source that declares this as a tenet of the Church. It does not need evidence that Christ is in fact the Son of God. If however someone adds to this as follows: "Christians contend that Christ in the Son of God. Science does not accept that this is true." I would regard this as an inappropriate edit as it counterpoints an uncontroversial statement of one fact with a negation of a quite different fact. I would also expect this to be given V RS because although many perhaps most scientists are atheist (including me), many are not, and we should not lightly presume to speak for a field of diverse opinions in this way. Fyslee, I'm not sure what the bottom line is but I trust your judgement. As for Mccready's edits, generally I think that his copy editing is usually excellent. However, in this (now notorious) example [10] Mccready attributed a statement to Ford. wholly inaccurately (in this case trusting KV’s word). My response was to state fine, I’d be happy with his revision if he could verify it against the text; I only had an abstract. He didn’t reply, clarify, or correct. This does not give me confidence in the integrity of his research. As I’ve said many times, if I’m harder on scientists than on others it’s because I feel that they have no excuse. I spend a large part of my time checking the accuracy of papers submitted for publication; too much. If I lean on V RS in peer-reviewed literature, it is out of respect for others who do likewise, and if we don’t draw a large line in authority between sources that go through this discipline and sources that don’t, then as scientists we have no defence against nonsense except our authority, and arguing from authority is in the end destructive of science itself.Gleng 08:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Gleng, I think your purpose is very clear and neither Fyslee nor I expect you to make judgements about content. Your value is in your ability to see through our (and others) scotomas, and highlight the facts from the fluff. So don't go too far away; if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Our system seems to be working just fine. We can still accomplish a lot. I think it is important to show that there is a scientific following that has dropped subluxation, a following that wants to prove subluxation, and a following that wants to keep it a metaphysical concept. I think this is verifiable and true (its always nice when they both work out). I think it would also include all chiropractors, unless you can think of another type group. After we have done that, we can then try to determine how large each group is and that may give us an idea of a net effect of the chiropractic "conciousness", essentially being a NPOV with all POVs represented. The problem here is that those that scream loudest may not be the majority. What do you think. --Dematt 14:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Gleng and Dematt, your influence here is invaluable. It is essential that we continue to work collaboratively, because we all have the same goal, to produce the best article about the subject of chiropractic ever writtten. It must be comprehensive, covering all the bases, be well-resourced, and have no significant gaps. No one who reads it should be able to be surprised by anything they read about chiropractic. They should be able to say "I read it first at Wikipedia!" Dematt, you're right in your suspicion about those who scream the loudest.... The WCA has only about as many members as the NACM (a few hundred at most), and the ICA is also a rather small group, compared to the ACA, and yet they both have a big influence, possibly because of their use of aggessive marketing. They have learned well from BJ, who was a pioneer in the mass marketing business. They "scream" loudly, and that makes it seem like their numbers are greater than is the case. But what about their influence? I think it is way out of proportion to their membership, but well entrenched because of its "historical" validity, and that worries me. With their ball-and-chain tied to chiropractic's origins, they are a stumbling block to the profession's progress, and even more so to its reputation. Skeptics and the public "see" far too much from their viewpoint, which is marketed widely. I wish the silent majority would get off their asses and publicly denounce them and get them booted from the profession. All chiropractors should have to sign a "renouncement of VS" document. ...continue rant (or am I singing to the choir....;-) ? But why can't that happen? A public renunciation of the vertebral subluxation would be an admission that the foundation of the profession had been an illusion all along. It would also be an admission that Homola and the NACM were right. The day that happens will be the day the Catholic church canonizes Luther! The belief in VS, in the beginning, could be termed "prescientific," but when maintained so long in the face of massive advances in scientific knowledge, including physiology, neurology, pathology, and diagnostic imaging technology, as well as lots of opposition, well....then a continued insistance on keeping the VS becomes pseudoscientific. Since true believers are such, at least partially because they don't understand critical thinking and the essential differences between science and pseudoscience, they then try to deny or "iron out" (disguise) the difference between orthopedic subluxation and vertebral subluxation, (as well as kinesiology and applied kinesiology), and claim that belief in VS is a cutting edge protoscience. Humbug! "If you're on the cutting edge, you're on the wrong side of the knife." A prescientific idea that is unproven, yet vehemently retained in the absence of evidence, at some point in time becomes a pseudoscience. Here's another little portion from my "book": A reform chiropractor has written: “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 vertebral subluxations isn't chiropractic. Call it something else. Here's a message from the NACM vice-president (or something like that), before he got blocked from chirolist. They don't tolerate doubters: In a message dated 4/12/2004 9:28:59 PM Central Standard Time, jhartdc@yahoo.com writes: "I agree, that subluxation is the key difference and should be maintained as the center of chiropractic practice. That is our niche." Niche? A made up construct that has no epidemiology, no standardization? A niche in which anyone can make it up as they go and make up a 100 different ways to find it? Geez, some niche. I say get rid of it. Timothy A. Mirtz DC MSE CHES That's the stumbling block impeding chiropractic's progress. But it is so central, the defining "key difference" and "niche," that it's well nigh impossible to give it up without it being viewed as public harakiri. It would be a public relations' nightmare. If chiropractic had done a long time ago what osteopathy did (openly renounce their attachments to Still's biotheology), then the profession wouldn't be where it is today. But it made a wrong turn in the road when confronted with scientific criticism and increased knowledge. It circled the wagons to protect VS, which has placed it in the same position as someone who started out by telling something that happened to be untrue, even though that wasn't their original intention (like KV and the Ford matter). But when confronted with the fact that it wasn't true, the profession then told a lie, and when confronted with more criticism told another lie, and then another one, and built more schools, wrote more books, performed more research, all devoted to proving that the lie was true. At some point in time critical mass is reached. Too many chiropractors and too many patients will discover that they have painted themselves into a corner from which there is no escape. It's too embarrassing a situation to contemplate. It simply hurts to think of it, and some chiropractors are bailing out. I really feel with the chiros who tell me their stories. I used to get private messages, but now Chirotalk is the place where they do it, so I don't get those messages as often. Here is a chiro joke that I once received from a realistic chiropractor: A little boy and his dad were walking around a cemetery. On one of the tombstones it said "Chiropractor". The boy asked "Dad, what is a chiropractor?" The dad replies, " Son, they no longer exist. They were like the dinosaurs. They failed to adapt to their changing environment." The joke is both funny and sobering. It's so true. There is change, but it's far too late and too far behind the curve. The chiropractors who can make a positive contribution to scientific knowledge are those who abandon all forms of innatist, vitalistic, VS language and thought patterns, and using well-accepted anatomical and scientific terminology, will research what really happens when a joint is manipulated. (I wrote to you about this once. [11]) While I doubt the results will be that significant or important, they will be interesting and fill one of the many gaps in our current knowledge. Now to hear chiropractors expressing my sentiments, check these out: Subluxation: dogma or science? Joint complex dysfunction, a novel term to replace subluxation/subluxation complex: etiological and treatment considerations In the Quest for Cultural Authority BOOP (Bone Out Of Place) Subluxation Issues: The "Curse of Chiropractic" According to R.W. Stephenson Dysafferentation: A Novel Term Philosophy and Science versus Dogmatism in the Practice of Chiropractic Here's a "treat" from the really dark side subluxationist true believers. Anyone criticized in this article can be counted on as a person to be trusted and scientifically minded. It's really bad! "Connecting the Dots on the Dark side." Sludge's Favorite Quotes Of The Year to Prepare You For The Coming Millenium - Matthew "Scrooge" McCoy (editor of the so-called "peer reviewed" JVSR rag) -- Fyslee 21:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Suggesting an one month community ban for Mccready on all pseudoscience articles I'm suggesting a one month community ban of Mccready from all pseudoscience articles. [12] He could edit the talk pages but not the article. Please make your thoughts known on AN/I. FloNight 16:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC) You might want to weigh in your thoughts here, if you haven't already. TheDoctorIsIn 18:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Straight POV This article that you posted above: "Connecting the Dots on the Dark side." Sludge's Favorite Quotes Of The Year to Prepare You For The Coming Millenium - Matthew "Scrooge" McCoy I think it makes a well documented argument that shows the straight POV. They do not see themselves as religious zealots, and in fact seem to think they are on a scientific footing of some sort. Lets see of we can get Gleng to take a look at it. I think we can use it somehow. I'll meet you on his talk page. --Dematt 12:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Suppression? I moved the disportionate detail, non-summary, debatable material to "Criticism" in toto and then added the summarized points as best I could. If I were accusatory, I could say that you just duplicated the criticism section for double exposure under the trojan claim of victimization (restoration of criticism into Intro *and* keeping the moved criticism in Criticism). Would you like to restore my edit, improve it as best you can, and discuss it like a gentleman, please. I might add that I have more material that I think better references and describes the subject's evolution and common perceptions. I feel that discussion would be more productive, which you have avoided for a while, at LP etc. Again, I think orthomed / megavitamin therapy / LP really is not an area of factual strength for the QW based POV. Were you reading the OM talk section carefully while I was absent? Have you read my latest OM talk reply to 'Canard?[13] Several new references were listed in orthomed Talk that are definitely not favorable to the viability of your favorite in this area[14]. May I suggest that you save your strength and attention for other areas that QW may have more merit?--TheNautilus 10:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Mccready is issued a 30 day community probation related to Pseudoscience articles Hello Based on the comments left on AN/I, I issued a 30 day topic ban to Mccready. (see Community probation log [15]) Discussion on talk pages is encouraged. Admins can enforce the ban if needed. Crosspost from AN: Based on this discussion on AN/I [16] and the numerous comments on Mccready's talk page, Mccready (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is issued a 30 day ban from editing all articles related to the Pseudoscience. Mccready is encouraged to discuss his ideas on the talk pages of these articles. The the suggested sanction for disregarding the article ban is a 24 hour block with the block time adjusted up or down according to Mccready's response. Admins are encouraged to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of this article topic ban and make appropriate adjustments if needed. FloNight 23:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC) Further discussion about the ban or request for enforcement can be made at AN/I or AN. FloNight 01:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC) Reply to your message Hello Fyslee :-) Wikipedia article bans often allow a day or so for an user to adjust to the sanctions before a block is given for ignoring it. During that time admins clarify the ruling and answer questions. Since Mccready was off-site for the discussion on AN/I, that approach is especially important to this situation. See the comments I left on his talk page and block warning. If he disregards the warning, Mccready will be blocked in the future. Take care, FloNight 02:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC) You're Invited Come on over - [Dematts ChiroPractice page]--Dematt 23:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Check it out again. --Dematt 20:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC) Check it again. My first version. I made some changes to try to get it to flow. Make sure I didn't change anything that is important t you. --Dematt 22:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC) Pejorative You'd think we'd eventually learn how to spell it:)--Dematt 20:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC) ). Fyslee, please see this [17]Gleng 18:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Barnstar! Thanks for my Barnstar! You're the one that deserves it. Thank YOU! --Dematt 21:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Proposal to merge Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and NCAHF article I have started three separate proposals to merge these three articles. The discussion for each amalgamiton of the merge begins here. I would appreciate you taking the time to give your thoughts for each proposal. Thanks. Levine2112 00:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC) References (Please keep this section at the bottom.) Spinal disc herniation Fyslee, what do you think about this. --Dematt 04:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Anulus/annulus For context, see a_43/12137626 at Dorland's Medical Dictionary and a_50/12143660 at Dorland's Medical Dictionary. (In the links, "TA" refers to terminologia anatomica.)--Arcadian 13:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Improved here. -- Fyslee 20:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Thanks! --Arcadian 02:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC) About Wikipedia e-mail Hi, Fyslee. I've received two e-mails from you, one on the 27 and one today. I replied pretty promptly to the first, but the second, from today, sounds like you never got my reply. Maybe it got stuck in your spam filter or something? I don't quite know how to communicate, if you don't have my address, and I can't get through the defences of yours. :-( Bishonen | talk 20:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC). Sorry about not replying. I have been in Berlin over the weekend. I have now sent an email. -- Fyslee 20:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC) I made some changes How about this. It's really borderline reliable, but I think it should be verifiable. --Dematt 01:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC) QW & Kauffman, wrt SB It is usually appreciated when someone goes to the effort of writing a note, that a 3rd/4th revert is discussed with constructive suggestions. As for the imagined "agreement" concerning SB, it was at QW alone (w/o reference to SB), it was a search for a means to build some consensus & common ground where edits were going divergent. I wrote the abruptly introduced, initial "minimalist" proposal/trial balloon, and if you look carefully there were actually three options (see the "...", options #2 & #3 would be a re-do of the first 3 sentences of the original longer, tougher paragraph, above or below the Critics section heading - sort of a mini-Rorschach test), the other two options were more pointed. Natto chose the most minimal, most favorable option to QW/SB, instant agreement (relief) from pro-QW editors (notice I am silent for a long while to let the others decide). Now, we have been getting other editors' ideas about NPOV edits and if you look, you will see that QW article's Kauffman analysis section is still in a polishing mode from other editors that is trying to improve the article, not just a rebuild with the previous pithy (& apparently feared) WTWaQW quotes. You weren't even participating in the "minimalist" discussion, so pls look closely. Now it is time to settle the SB article and the Kauffman article is highly relevant.--I'clast 07:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC) I agree with I'clast. There was a clear agreement between all the editors involved.NATTO 10:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC) FWIW, I don't agree with I'clast and NATTO. However, I need someone to re-FACT check the articles. Levine2112 and NATTO have made changes which imply serious errors in your edits as to claims in Forbes and JAMA. I'm willing to work on keeping the tone encyclopedic and the article balanced, but I can't fact-check. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC) Comments that do not belong in my talk page Fyslee, I you wish to comments or discuss issues with another editor, please do so either on your talk page or on theirs. Also it is not your place to respond, in my place, to another editor who is posting a message on MY talk page. The comments are below : Indeed. Please do, since that will provide an opportunity to provide Quackwatch's arguments on those points. Just open that door.....;-) But, on second thought, we're trying to write an encyclopedia, not conduct a discussion group. The article is about Quackwatch. If you really want to do that, do it on their articles. That way, if you really want to invite Barrett et al into those articles, just do what you are suggesting. You'll get the whole scientific community on your backs, point-by-(excruciatingly revealing)-point. So far all the criticism you have provided on the various articles has only resulted in enlargening them and strenghtening them, for which we are actually grateful. Call it unintended "collateral benefit" to the cause of exposing quackery and fringe science...;-) Without it we might have settled for short and factual articles. (Maybe this is a result of too much mercury exposure? Dangerous stuff! It keeps one from seeing "the big picture." To see it, just look at the articles before and after you got involved.) Have a nice day. -- Fyslee 13:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Per the above, apparently bias, (in)accuracy, (im)balance are minor concerns once a certain POV is established. As for the "the whole scientific community", QW is already missing silent portions of the scientifc community, albeit many only express their opinion after retirement, if ever. The QW article before? the word hagiology comes to mind.--I'clast 13:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Well, we wouldn't want that kind of thing. It's a controversial site, and it can't be any other way. Any website or anyone who has an opinion will risk getting involved in controversy, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. That's one of the ways we learn. Studying both sides of a controversy is stimulating and helps us to developed informed biases, rather than blind prejudices. (Read my introduction for more on that subject.) Controversies should be mentioned and linked, but the article isn't the place for editors to continue the discussion on their own account, or on the account of others. Doing that is unencyclopedic and would end up reproducing the website and portions of other websites, ending up with a long, rambling, and argumentative article. We need to stay on-topic. Mention the controversies, link to them and the subjects - including wikilinks - and then let readers do their own studying outside of the article itself. The article should just mention things. It plants the seeds, but it isn't our job to do the harvesting. (If you were a fundamentalist Christian - like I have been - you'd recognize that that is the work of the Holy Spirit....;-) -- Fyslee 14:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC) The above comment are also of a threatening nature. This is not appropriate at all NATTO 15:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC) NATTO, you have been here at Wikipedia long enough to know this is nonsense. People make comments on each other's talk pages all the time in response to third party comments. We're a big community here. My comment was not in your "place," but was obviously my own comment, in response to I'clast's comments, which he responded to, and I responded back again. We were having an adult conversation and I'm sure I'clast wasn't confused. Are you going to forbid me from making comments on your talk page? It would certainly be an unusual and uncollaborative attitude, but if that is your wish, I guess the same could apply the other way around. I have seen childish attempts to forbid certain people from writing on some people's talk pages before, and obviously without success, since such an unfriendly, bad faith, attitude is not welcome here at Wikipedia. Is that your idea of a good faith attitude and way to encourage collaboration? I think not. That's a very unwikipedian attitude. You are an adult dentist and I would have expected you to act more professionally. Shame on you! Keep in mind that Wikipedia is a very public place. Is this the kind of behavior you want people to judge you by? As for "threatening" you, surely you jest! I hope you're not that thin-skinned. That is a serious accusation and personal attack on my integrity. Please enlighten me with a precise quote from the comments you are referring to above, because I have certainly not intended to "threaten" you. I would love nothing better than to be able to collaborate in the development of good articles here. -- Fyslee 19:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Fyslee, I do not have a problem with you putting messages in reply to my own on my talk page but do not see the point of you replying to a message left to me by another editor ( i.e I'Clast ), which is what you have done in this case. You are obviously making it look like you were participating in a discussion when you clearly checked my talk page and found a message from I'Clast and decided to begin a discussion with him there. The place for such would be on his talk page. That is quite a reasonable assumption despite what you are trying to make of it. So again please do not reply to messages that are addressed to me on my talk page. As an adult you should not this is not only impolite but a lack of courtesy.NATTO 21:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC) I see. Hmmm....and I thought we were a community here. No place is truly private here. I'll try to remember, but if I forget, it's because your talk page is the only one I currently know of (on my large watchlist) with such limitations. What about the "threat" issue? What on earth is that about? -- Fyslee 21:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Look I do not want to drags this on and make a big case out of it. My request is simple even if it seems complicated to you. Any time you want to discuss things with me on my talk page , you are welcomed. If you want to engage another editor, do it on their talk page, unless it is a three way discussion involving me. I will do the same with regards to you since anyway this is already what I do. I understand that WP is a community. NATTO 22:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC) "...Mention the controversies, link to them and the subjects - including wikilinks" this is similar to my thinking with the suggestion to Natto of 2-5 word phrases with 1-2 superscripted references to Natto earlier. I do like cleaner prose, but significant contention points need some kind of ' * '. In some cases I think that better examples could be given, e.g. I think Pauling is a poor example (i.e. QW bragging that it shot & skinned the rarest, largest of a protected species to both fed'l and state game agents after running the fleece up the flagpole would seem kind of ill advised, even in the most anti-govt woods). We've been working on this article hot & heavy for several weeks, things have been getting a little warm again this weekend. The QW article is in pretty good shape now, perhaps we should try to slow to small, occasional edits this week. Its still Sunday here, so let's think positive thoughts about our neighbors. Pace.--I'clast 23:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC) I'Clast, Sound advice. Thank you and enjoy what is left of your week-end :-) NATTO 23:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Sounds good to me. -- Fyslee 05:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC) Andrew Weil: In reply to: Excellent work on the Andrew Weil article. -- Fyslee 20:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Thank you for your positive comments :-) NATTO 21:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Credit where credit is due...;-) -- Fyslee 21:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Forbes Fyslee, it is obvious that you are not going to allow information in the article about the fact that Forbes did not pick QW as 'Forbes Best of the Web' even if the facts are clear. I understand that it is not as favotable to QW as the original wording but that it the way it is. If that is so important to you that readers think that QW has been picked as 'Forbes Best of the Web' than so be it, I am not going to change your edit. Why let the facts get in the way. This said the latest wording is a clear improvement on the original one and I am fine with it.NATTO 22:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC) (comments merged) I'm still trying to figure out where you get these ideas. Maybe it has something to do with the difference between French and English, IOW some kind of language thingy. Of all the sites which Forbes chooses to list in their "Best of the Web Directory," there is no special rating called "Forbes Best of the Web" given to one particular site, which you seem to insist. Out of the millions of websites to choose from, Forbes chooses a few websites and calls ALL of them "Best of the Web." Then it chooses ONE of them and calls it "Forbes Favorite." It then chooses a FEW of them (the number can vary) and calls them "Forbes Best of the Web pick"s. The rest are simply listed in alphabetical order. Out of the millions of websites, they are all still part of Forbes "Best of the Web." No one has suggested otherwise, or that QW has some special status or rating in that group. That's your straw man. If you still think so, then please provide links from the edit history to prove it. I think you have read into it a misunderstanding, and run with it. Your hatred of QW has affected your thinking. The point is that QW was chosen, along with a number of other good sites, for special mention at Forbes. It was then reviewed and, like all the others, there were positive and negative comments. Fair enough. -- Fyslee 05:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC) Blocked I blocked you and Levine2112 12 hours each for violating WP:3RR in Quackwatch. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 03:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC) I'll place the report below. This is my first block! At least Levine2112 was also blocked, which makes it seem somewhat more fair....;-) -- Fyslee 06:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC) User:Fyslee reported by User:Levine2112 (Result:12 hours each) Three-revert rule violation on Quackwatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Fyslee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Previous version reverted to: 20:42, 13 October 2006 1st revert: 21:25, 13 October 2006 2nd revert: 22:28, 13 October 2006 3rd revert: 22:33, 13 October 2006 4th revert: 22:50, 13 October 2006 Time report made: 22:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Comments: Editor is initiating an edit war on three page simultaneously (Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and NCAHF). Comment: Levine2112 made his first revert before the first one of mine listed above, and thus made his 4RR immediately before I made my 3RR. If I did anything wrong, it was certainly unintentional. The whole thing is found at Quackwatch, where we were discussing the matter. I used Wikipedia policies to show that two links were in total violation of WP:RS, WP:EL, and WP:BLP, and therefore, since no one was responding with anything better than emotional arguments, I made a bold delete. That doesn't count in a 3RR, which only counts reverts, hence it being called 3RR, rather than 3DRR I'm trying to keep libel out of the articles, and Levine2112 and company are trying to include it. Motivations are totally different. -- Fyslee 00:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Comment: I have asked Fyslee to provide me with the DIFFs showing my violation as he charges. He has not been able to... because it doesn't exist. This is not the place to argue our edits, just his violation of the 3RR, which you can see in the four DIFFs provided above. Please also note that in my 3rd and final revert, I used the edit summary to warn Fyslee that we has on the verge of violating 3RR. It is hard for me to buy that his violation was, as he says, unintentional. He's an experienced editor here and should know better than use an edit war to push his POV agenda. Levine2112 00:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Both of you broke 3rr that I see, 12 hours each. Jaranda wat's sup 03:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Alternative Medicine article has been sabataged again. The article has been sabataged again. Also, if you look at the users contributions, that IP beginning with 220 has vandalized many other articles. 63.17.35.27 19:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC) It looks to me like you both are involved in some dubious actions. No commercial sites are allowed and should be removed. -- Fyslee 19:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC) Acupuncture Hi Fyslee! If you have a moment, could you have a look at Acupuncture#A_note_on_scientific_methodology_and_acupuncture? There are some fact-tags there that you might be able to help with. best, Jim Butler(talk) 04:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC) I see what you mean. Most of the statements are true enough, and just need some good examples in the form of quotes and/references, and they should therefore not be deleted. The statement about the ethics of using placebos in China is a new one to me. If it's true it should be possible to find a reference. Some of the others are of the falsifiability type. As soon as an editor can provide evidence that the statement is false, they can remove the statement, or leave it and provide the statement and reference showing its falsity. This last approach would make the article even more exhaustive and strong, since it would show that editors are covering "both sides of the coin." The References section is woefully lacking, especially considering the size of the article and the importance of the subject. Most of the existing references are not linked to on-line sources. While this isn't an absolute, it should be done as often as possible. (Verifiability in the Wiki sense is not the same as verifiability in the common sense. Readers should be able to immediately verify if the source is real and quoted correctly. Links will help them do that.) All of the links in the text to outside sources and references should be formatted in reference form, so the numbers are smaller and not as distracting, and then they should be formatted with descriptions and external links. I know you are an acupuncturist and no doubt know much more than I about the subject. While I'm a skeptic, acupuncture is a type of therapy which I watch and do not exclude from the possibility of there being real effects that may be of benefit, in contrast to homeopathy. [18] It's more a matter of what claims are made that determine if it is quackery or not. Most of the common claims made are without a good scientific foundation, so the whole practice is problematic. Better quality research does need to be done, as the current research is quite poor. I'm sure this situation will improve, especially if we stop relying on Chinese research, which is notorious for its imprecision, lack of blinding, and use as a political propaganda tool. Much of the popular support for acupuncture started with Mao's swindle number made on visiting doctors who thought they were witnessing real operations being performed using acupuncture anesthesia. Photos of one such incident have shown the incident to be a hoax. [19] Such operations were often performed using modern anesthesia in combination with acupuncture. [20][21] Here are plenty of abstracts. [22] -- Fyslee 06:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Thanks very much, Fyslee. Good point about falsifiability; in general I'm in no hurry to remove fact-tagged material that plausibly appear to represent a sig POV (whether I personally agree with it or not). On acu anesthesia, yes, I've read some material about that. IME, acu excels at relieving pain (particularly via trigger point release) and reducing stress, which have all sorts of positive, cascading effects on health and feelings of well-being. I can't quite see acu for total anesthesia, though! Very sad thing about the political side. Valuable material was lost in the effort to fit acu and herbology onto the same Procrustean framework. That said, the Chinese-trained docs I had as teachers were top-notch; several were graduates of the first classes convened in China after the decade-long chaos of the Cultural Revolution. Ten years' worth of China's brightest people, working in factories and farms, competing for spots in finally-reopened med schools. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 05:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC) If I may observe and comment very briefly, I want to say I find this conversation between an evidently diligent acupuncturist and an evidently diligent scientific sceptic quite heartening. Good regards to both of you, Fyslee and JimButler. ... Kenosis 16:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC) You are more than welcome to comment here, and feel free to do so in the future. I understand what you mean. All too often such conversations are very strained, but I have no problem discussing and even cooperating with people I can respect. Such respect often involves more about how a person is than about what they believe. Mutual respect and assuming good will are very different attitudes than the all too common tendency to demonize " the opposition." Jim is a perfect gentleman and can really keep his cool under pressure, unlike myself. I admire him for that. I have my doubts about certain (major) aspects of acupuncture, and many things about alternative medicine, but I have nothing against those who believe in them. OTOH I have no sympathy for those who exploit people, or who refuse to look at the other side of the coin, or whose first reaction is to make personal attacks rather than deal with the issues at hand. I am quite critical on my websites about chiropractic, but find my best ally here to be a chiropractor who really understands NPOV and collaborative editing. It is User:Dematt. An amazing editor here. We share the goal of ensuring that all POV are represented, and therefore are basically against deletionist attempts to suppress opposing POV, which is a very common practice here. It violates the whole idea of making an encyclopedia that covers all aspects of a subject. -- Fyslee 16:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Indeed yes, to all of what you've just said. ... Kenosis 17:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Fyslee, you're far too generous about my character, but I also agree with what you say about ethics and NPOV, and you say it very well. "Covering all aspects of a subject" is indeed the potential of WP, and it's heartening to collaborate with editors who intelligently put this philosophy, and "Golden Rule" netiquette, into practice. I'd include you and Kenosis, as well as Dematt and Gleng and a few others, in that category. May that tribe increase. BTW, I too have a pretty strong scientific skeptical streak; as I've said before, I like Truzzi's perspective. He just nails it, IMO. This is why I feel comfortable operating in not-proven-but-not-disproven-either arenas if am able to do so in ways that alleviate suffering (facilitated communication, which some autistic people incl. my son use, is another baby-bathwater example I'm passionate about). The healing response, and human behavior generally, involve a lot of variables controlling for which is pretty challenging. much appreciation, Jim Butler(talk) 07:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Chiropractic schools It's not good to ever create a duplicate article - it just leads to confusion. If the name of an article is wrong, you can use the Move function or create a redirect. --ArmadilloFromHell 07:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC) That's what I'm doing right now. Give me a little time. I'm making redirects first. -- Fyslee 08:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC) Sorry - but you did not do that, you copied partial content from an existing article into a new article. e.g. You left out the categories. That is not the correct way. The proper thing is to just do a move, which maintents the edit hisrtoy and renames the article, leaving a redirect from the old name. --ArmadilloFromHell 08:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC) Fine. I'm not used to doing it that way, but that is no doubt the proper way. Please do it for me. This is being done in response to an administrator's suggestion, and is being discussed on the chiropractic talk page, so its not a renegade action designed to destroy anything. I'm perfectly willing to cooperate with you if you can help do this in a better manner. Just tell me what to do. Should I take care of changing the existing wikilinks and adding redirects other places? -- Fyslee 08:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC) It's done now. -- Fyslee 19:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC) Stephen Barrett: Accusations of bias and lack of objectivity Dear Fyslee, With all respect the two comments I made about Stephen Barrett cannot be dismissed as merely "interesting". They are germane to questions of "bias and lack of objectivity". They belong under that heading. I have at least one other in the pipeline (I have emailed Dr. Barrett about this, as I have my other points) and I do not think you are justified in removing my comments. They are relevant and correct and they should stay in the Stephen Barrett article until he edits his website appropriately. I further observe that I have no time at all for most of the people Barrett criticises. Yours sincerely, Robert2957 20:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Thank you Dear Fyslee, MANY thanks for the information about the Ginseng and the tip about editing. I also notice you have tightened up the appearance of one or two pages I have contributed to such as the Ornish Diet {which I personally follow}. This is appreciated. I cannot reply at greater length now, but I will try to get back to you soon. Yours sincerely Robert2957 15:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC) You're welcome. The Ornish diet is actually a very healthy one and most people would benefit from it. -- Fyslee 18:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Dear Fyslee, There is more information about Ginseng here [23]. Look in the right hand "related links" column. I hope this is of interest. Yours sincerely, Robert2957 06:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the info. I'll check it out. Maybe it might be useful some day.....;-) -- Fyslee 06:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC) Prescientific systems I have been looking to try and help you out on the List of PS subject and have not been aboe to find anything that makes any sense concerning prescientific systems and PS. Have you seen something? --Dematt 20:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC) I haven't really thought much about it. I had never heard of the word before seeing it here at Wikipedia. I believe it is a legitimate concept, and there are no doubt many examples. Modern medicine was once a prescientific system. I find it a problematic matter when prescientific systems fail to accept the advances and possibilities of modern knowledge, discoveries and technology, and continue to maintain their outdated beliefs. When that happens I call it pseudoscience, since they usually claim their beliefs are scientifically valid. It sort of comes with the territory -- they wouldn't make such claims if they really understood science and critical thinking. This naturally results in them taking offence at being called pseudoscientific, and then they attempt to remove or demolish the concept from Wikipedia. -- Fyslee 20:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC) I'm afraid that if we don't find something to support that, then we are really creating some OR - even if it is good;) Especially on a page this controversial. Any ideas? --Dematt 22:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC) Of course. We'll keep these thoughts on the this talk page....;-) -- Fyslee 22:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC) Too Too Long Hey, I was thinking that even though we have been wanting to add stuff to the chiro page, we can't because it is "far too long":) Maybe we can actually expand the fun by taking out the Practice Styles and making a page for each type of chiropractor. That way we can expand on all the differnt types without creating conflict among the chiros that don't belong to a particular group. I know the history section is long, but it sure did help to explain a lot and that's when the controversy stopped. If we break it up, we have to find a way to still keep the context of time. Also, if we can find a way, we can probably also be able to shorten the safety and science sections by making other articles for them as well. What do you think? I do worry about opening up new bags of worms;) --Dematt 23:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC) I know what you're talking about! I have had a premonition all along that this would end up happening. It's a big subject, so splitting is inevitable. Right now I need to get to bed. It's after 2 AM here. I'll just quickly add an answer to Levine2112 before I do that. I hope you read it. -- Fyslee 00:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC) kay! --Dematt 00:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC) Redesign OK, the redesign is done! The content of the page is located at User:Fyslee/Leftcolumn and the userboxes are at User:Fyslee/Userboxes, both transcluded onto your main user page. Enjoy! —Mets501 (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC) Wow! That looks great! Thanks so much. -- Fyslee 14:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC) E-mail E-mail enabled. Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 19:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC) quackery project Is there a page for a WP quackery project? (If so, I seem to have lost it). Bubba73 (talk), 21:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC) Sure, there are plenty of quacks and their supporters at work here.....;-) No, joking aside, I'm not sure there is anything really organized. There are some skeptic projects and watchlists, but not necessary concentrated on medical quackery. If you remember what it was you may have lost, let me know. I'm certainly interested. It's tough dealing with believers if various quackeries and pseudosciences, since it is more or less a religion for them, the the true believer syndrome is very much a part of their thinking. They are often immune to cognitive dissonance, and may well be involved in it economically, so their motivations can be a real blend of woo-woo thinking, fanaticism, well-meaning naivity, and even greed. Keep me oriented. You can always email me. -- Fyslee 22:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)