User talk:Puhlaa

Hello, Puhlaa, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Welcome!

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page.

If you are interested in medicine-related themes, you may want to check out the Medicine Portal.
If you are interested in contributing more to medical related articles you may want to join WikiProject Medicine (signup here).

Again, welcome! --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes thanks for the note. Cochrane reviews hold more weight even when older than other reviews as they are a systematic review and meta-analysis and having an exceedingly rigorous analysis. I however do support the inclusion of other reviews as long as appropriate weight is given. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:RS

Per WP:RS review articles are always preferred over primary research. If you us pubmed there is a button to the right that will limit your search to review articles. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Also neutral terms like person are preferred over patient, client or victim.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Refs

Fixed a couple of ref no worries. The first one you write <ref name=AB10>ref here</ref> after which you can use <ref name=AB10/> --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW with respect to editing "chiropractor" I would advice care. It is very controversial topic. While most would accept equivalence from manipulation in the treatment of LBP as compared to other standard treatment. All other conditions are less well supported. Unfortunately some still promote manipulation for them ( such as asthma ). This tarnishes those who just deal with MSK stuff. Of course I am not sure of your opinion on these matter but... --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkbacks

Hello, Puhlaa. You have new messages at DigitalC's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DigitalC (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Puhlaa. You have new messages at DigitalC's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DigitalC (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Puhlaa. You have new messages at DigitalC's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DigitalC (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Chiropractic

Absolutely... An enlightened outsider may be just what the page needs. I will give you any feedback I can. Good luck! Ocaasi (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Some pointers. MEDRS has a hierarchy which does deprecate most mere published letters; on the other hand, the response of the field to studies critiquing it strikes me as enormously relevant. There's not a 'right' answer from my perspective but a broader balance to the article which still needs to be achieved. I think that balance involves what Chiropractors think and dispute about the studies of their field. I consider this part and parcel of having a neutral point of view. QG emphasizes the hierarchy of mainstream, published literature and wants to present what I consider the Scientific point of view, deprecating anything not on equal footing in mainstream medical journals.

Consensus is great, but if we can't find it, there are options for dispute resolution, such as opening up a discussion through an WP:RFC, or starting a thread at a noticeboard, either WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN, for sources and neutrality, respectively. I'm not the only one who feels the way I do, nor is QG the only one who feels the way he does, although he is one of the most ardent voices for it. I think you're doing good work and keeping an even keel. Let me know if you have any particular questions. It's also always great to get some outside opinions. Ocaasi (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I responded on my talk page. Are you using your watchlist yet? See WP:WATCHLIST. In a nutshell, you click the Star at the top of pages you are working on (Articles or Users), and then you click My Watchlist and can see recent changes to all of the articles. Very useful. I had one other idea. You might write out a brief chronology of the argument. Offered A. Objection B. Compromise C. Rejected due to D. Offered E... You did this for me in short, but it might help others track the argument as well. Ocaasi (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussion more than notekeeping. I've set up a notes page for you at User:Puhlaa/notes in your WP:USERSPACE (see: Wikipedia:UP#SUB and WP:SUBPAGES). You can create a new page any time you want by typing in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Puhlaa/PAGETITLEHERE , and you can access all of your userspace pages at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:PrefixIndex/User:Puhlaa/&action=view . Ocaasi (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you copied the text but not the source code. It will format better if you open the Edit tab on the talk page and copy and paste the raw markup text. Ocaasi (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Summary is only for your benefit and others if you need to sum-up the debate. Don't sweat it; use the page for whatever is helpful.Ocaasi (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

A few things:

I'm still catching up on your discussion at Chiropractic. You caught up on policy remarkably quickly, and I didn't see any major (or minor) misunderstandings on your part. At this point, you frankly understand the sources better than I do. My science background is general and ends with courses at college. And I don't have access to non-free text journal articles. So I'm trying to follow and weigh in on policy, but you're actually making the points I would (hope to) make. Namely, MEDRS is not a death-grip, it's a guideline. Systematic Reviews are not infallible by nature, and some are better than others (i.e. systematic reviews of case reports which don't consider benefits ;p) and not all non-systematic reviews are weak (secondary sources can be great, especially if more recent, and clinical guidelines that are review-based and systematic are quite useful, too). As for the responses to the research, I think we should include them all, summarized in a sentence or two with links in the refs. Ernst's response to the responses should of course be included, too. This is the level of detail I'm interested in, though some MEDRS folks will find it to be a bit too rough chatty and prefer to focus on 'the resolved' bits. Which begs the question, of course about which pieces are rightly resolved. Anyway... I'm going to check out the project-medicine link. FYI, I'm glad QG notified you of the discussion. He should, and in the past hasn't been great about that. Any time he goes to another board, it's at least polite if not standard editing practice for him to give you a head's up.

I thought you might be interested in 2 other things:

Here's a list of sources I compiled regarding Chiropractic. Excerpts and links. Somewhat thorough but really just an overview of major pieces. You can edit it or copy it or do whatever you want if its useful.
- I had an idea that you might prefer to draft the entire article, or entire sections, in your userspace. You could draft them as you think they should be, solicit opinions from editors besides those who have previously given their opinions, and then propose sections through a broader WP:RfC which would bring in many outside views. Editor Brangifer, whom I asked about that idea (and theoretically invited), said it was risky, since it can seem like the draft comes out of nowhere and not all will have been involved in it. I think it might work, at least as a comprehensive alternate version which can display the potential variation that you have not been able to display given the extremely small range of compromise at the article. Ocaasi (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback and the resources Ocaasi. I am happy to do whatever work is required to see some fair changes in the section. However, a major goal of mine is to have made changes without having to do anything that could be seen as biased (due to COI) or 'sneaky'. Do you suggest that I draft a version of the risk-benefit section on my userspace then? (and will this diminish my reputation on wikipedia any?) If you think I should, how do I proceed? Type up a proposal there, then message people to have a look at it as I had been trying to do on the Chiropractic talk page before QG arrived? Thanks again!Puhlaa (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not familiar with all of the politics of userspace drafts, but I know that they happen frequently, especially on controversial subjects (keep in mind, generally, that I have been an active editor for about a year but there are others who have been here much longer). So, this is an option for you, which may allow you to present a more carefully crafted alternative than the current editing environment. Userspace is there to be used and to be useful, so there is latitude. You can check out the links at WP:USERSPACE, WP:SUBPAGES, Wikipedia:Workpages, and Help:Userspace draft. Ocaasi (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

"Work in progress or material that you may come back to in future (usually on subpages): Drafts, especially where you want discussion or other users' opinions first, for example due to conflict of interest or major proposed changes
One technique sometimes used to reach consensus on difficult articles is to create a temporary copy which people can then edit to show others proposed refactorings, rephrasings, or other changes. This can be helpful for controversial subjects or controversial changes; editors can show others exactly what their vision for a proposed change is – without the controversy of having that new proposed version automatically replace the existing version...However, just as "spinout" articles have sometimes been mistaken for POV forks, temporary subpages have been mistaken for POV forks. Care should be taken on both sides to minimize such mistakes. New drafts should be written in the "user:" or "talk:" namespace and not in the main namespace; however, accidents happen and those who think they have found a POV fork, in turn, should check to see whether the article title indicates a temporary subpage and whether the talk page of the main article indicates that this is a place to work on consensus rather than to dodge it.

That's from Wikipedia:Userspace and Wikipedia:Forking, which seems pretty right on. Whether or not it will be effectively adopted in the future is unknown, but I'm comfortable that it's not a problem. Ocaasi (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Being discussed at talk/chiropractic. QG prefers proposals be on the talk page, and short. I think they're easier to tie up with objections that way. I'd opt for the wider latitude of userspace and then present the draft in manageable pieces later. Ocaasi (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I started my own here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ocaasi/chiro . You're more than welcome to rewrite any or all of the sections to reflect what you think is the best balance of sources. Ocaasi (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there a place to document changes and reasons for change associated with the draft in your userspace? It would make it easier to achieve consensus on a completely overhauled draft of the article if there was a place that other editors could see rational for changes (like the talk page on the actual article). Cheers! Merry Christmas!Puhlaa (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The article draft is just like any article; it has a talk page, too. You can open the talk page, create as many sections as you like by clicking the + at the top of the page, title them whatever you want, and detail the changes as carefully as you desire. Also, you can access the article history like any other article and use WP:DIFFs, which are literally version-trackers. This would let you make specific changes and show them side-by-side against the old version.

Vandalism is a common problem on Wikipedia, and thousands of edits are reverted or rejected daily by: an automated edit filter that screens for certain patterns, a machine-learning bot that screens for more sophisticated patterns, machine learning assisted human vandalism interfaces that present selected edits to users so they can determine if they are vandalism, a pending changes layer which can be applied to controversial articles so that edits do not 'go live' until approved by editors, and semi-or full protection which limits articles to either regular users or admins respectively. The vandalism counter on my talk page is a graphic feed which merely takes the number of reverts per minute done with an anti-vandalism program called WP:HUGGLE, and associates a level and color with it. More reverts per minute indicates vandalism is high, and vice/versa. During times when school is in session, vandalism is high, and on Sunday mornings, it plummets (sleep, not church, I predict). This is probably not worth your time, but many editors enjoy 'vandal-fighting', which is just looking a diffs and deciding if they are good edits or not constructive ones. I learned a lot about different areas of the encyclopedia this way, as well as an appreciation for the increasing technical sophisticated and the sheer human workload that goes into keeping it relatively pretty. There's very little on Wikipedia that's legitimately 'no one's business'. If you have questions, I say, shoot... Ocaasi (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey Ocaasi, thanks for the answers. I do have a couple more questions for you (sorry). Should changes be made to the page called User:Ocaasi/chiro or the page User talk:Ocaasi/chiro. Also, I dont see a specified talk page, howver their is a 'new section' tab, which seems set up like a talk page, is this where I should document changes? Thanks again.Puhlaa (talk) 00:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I moved the draft from talk to the mainpage. Summaries on talk. New section, yeah, same thing. Ditto on the holiday cheer. Enjoy your Christmas. Ocaasi (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a note... I like the way things are going at VAD, and not just because QG is not quite getting his way. It's important for the nuances of the Ernst studies to be broken out. The linear, unthinking...it's a systematic review--MEDRS--WEIGHT--we must use it now approach misses all kinds of grounds for editorial discretion, competing sources, Weight in the opposite direction, and NPOV in the broad sense. I haven't seen any policy misunderstanding on your part, and it's clear you've got a great handle on the details of the studies. I'd recommend continued work with JfdWolff, and Brangifer is a great person to check these with from the generally skeptical side. Very friendly and honest, as I think you noticed. Have you seen Chiropractic recently? There was a significant change regarding how the risk-benefit of spinal manipulation is characterized in the intro. I think it's a change for the better, but I'd like to bring some of this renewed attention and depth of sourcing, balance of phrasing to the article, etc. No rush, but it seems like there have been improvements lately Otherwise, it seems like you got the hang of things. Ocaasi (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey Ocaasi, thanks for the note. I have contributed what I can at VAD, I think I made my point (a few times perhaps) so theres not much else I can do there. I am glad that I havent misunderstood policy thus far...thanks for keeping an eye on me. I agree that Brangifer is friendly and reasonable and clearly a good person to consult for a generally skeptical opinion (which is important to help keep my own bias in check). I havent spent much time at chiropractic lately, I found it easier to incorporate change when new research appears, so I am biding my time as new research is published pretty regularly. Thanks again! Puhlaa (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, if you have a chance would you take a look at this. A concerned outsider is trying to beef up the pro-chiropractic sourcing and take on Ernst's role. I'm a bit busy with Egypt stuff at the moment... Thanks and nice work on recent additions to the article. If QG pushes back, you can always cite NPOV, and compromise to summarize the stance of both sources. Ocaasi (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem Ocaasi! I have had a quick read of thie material (S)He provided, this seems a good intentioned attempt to add balance (which is needed) without understanding wikipedia policy and still without adequate sources to do the job. I will discuss it with them :) Puhlaa (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

An unpopular chiropractic editor uses policies and language in a way that is almost tailor made to demean and frustrate. Rather than bothering with engaging on those points, ignore them completely and focus on the substance, ignore his comments completely and just wait for other editors, or just say, I won't respond to your insult/presumption/unexplained declaration/misreading of policy/misreading of sources... whatever. But I have found that calling him out on the incivility of his conversations is unproductive. He either doesn't care and is doing it intentionally, in which case there's no point; or he really believes he's so obviously right that anything you say will appear to be a tactic, or so oblivious to how things come across that it's unlikely a simple explanation will have much effect, though you may try.

Maybe you could politely say, "I'm not sure if you realize it, but ...either way, try not to spend much energy looking for more civility unless you're going to try a completely different approach. People have tried for years and it doesn't appear that your current track will have a different outcome. I don't want to suggest he's hopeless, but, I'm pretty sure you'll need a unique breakthrough or a perfectly tailored style to get a different response. In the past, explanations that point out how behavior is uncivil or why policy interpretations are incorrect are --literally-- responded to as if they were not said at all. To save you the frustration, feel free to just make your point so that other editors can see it.

Continued good work on the article. Thanks for sticking on it. Many are watching. If you need a break, you can take one, or ask Brangifer, DigitalC, or Rexxs, to add something you've drafted. You could also try to ask administrator Arthur Rubin, who is generally on the side of stricter policy interpretations, but does so consistently and intelligently. If he adds something you have written, it will have some sticking power. In short, try to develop a few relationships with other skeptical and respected editors so you can appeal to them when you are facing objections despite being well within policy. If you leave a note at anyone's page explaining the situation and asking for their opinion, it usually yields good results. Other places to ask for help--when you're confident you're right, or just want an honest second opinion--are the WP:MEDRS talk page, the WP:MED talk page, or the reliable sources noticeboard, or the original research noticeboard. It might require posting to one of these places since many people simply avoid the chiropractic article. Cheers, Ocaasi (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Ocaasi. I understand what you are saying. It is not that I know I am right, I may be wrong, but it will take more than the games of one particular editor to convince me of this :) I am not trying to add anything here, I just dont agree that Enrst 2008 deserves equal weight in the LEAD. There seems to be an agenda by one editor, I dont think its me? I like to think I am pretty reasonable and objective, so I prefer to stick to my guns on this unless a couple other editors form also suggest that I am wrong. In such a case I will gladly concede :) Anyways, again, thanks for the advice and kind words. I am pretty stubborn, and I kind of like to debate, So I am not fatiguing just yet. Many are watching...? I hope I am not making an ass of myself...haha :) Oh well. Puhlaa (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to be abundantly clear, I didn't think you were trying to demean or frustrate. From many are watching, I just meant that you're not arguing this by yourself, even if no one else has jumped in. Re: QG, I just didn't want you to waste frustration on someone who wasn't going to respond differently anyway. As long as you're having fun, and getting stronger with making the policy argument, go for it. Ocaasi (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I didnt think you meant me, however, please feel free to mention it if I ever do act in any way that could be interpreted as "improper". Puhlaa (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

On another note, what are your thoughts regarding labeling every use of conjunction to join 2 ideas as OR by QG? I understand that OR is an important policy, but if every idea must be sourced, and the use of conjunctions to join ideas is never allowed then the article reads like crap! It becomes a list of disconnected sentences from individual sources and does not have a very encyclopedic feel. For example, the use of "however" to join to opposing ideas from 2 sources, with each idea sourced, does not seem to change the message or the accuracy of the "section" in comparison to having 2 completely seperate sentences for 2 sources. This is very evident with the Ernst/Bronfort discrepancy in the body of the chiro article. Why say "A 2010 review found evidence for X.[ref] A 2008 review found Y.[ref]" when it sounds so much better to say "A 2010 review found evidence for X,[ref] however a 2008 review found Y.[ref]" I understand that neither source makes the direct comparison, but clearly the message is not changed by adding a conjunction and having the ideas in the sentence flow. Further, while this one example is perhaps insignificant, when QG marks every use of a conjunction as OR, in the end the entire article becomes choppy and disconnected without really adding more meaning or accuracy than would be present if editors allowed the article flow between ideas a little bettter. Thoughts? Puhlaa (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The ref

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes and other studies have found that 70% of junior physicians use Wikipedia. Also a large percentage of pharmacists. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ipsock template

I can understand your concern about that one because the template is a sock template, but this one leaves a neutral message that just ties the two accounts together, which aids in full disclosure of alternate accounts. Take a look at it. In this case it's just an aid in keeping the edit history for that person together the only way possible. Ideally we always edit using only one account, and an IP is also counted as an(other) account. New editors should do as this one seems to have done and that is to create an account and then only use it. Fine. I wish them well. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Brangifer. I realize now that it is just a neutral message and not a block. I edited as an IP for about a month, not fullly aware that I could or should start an account. Anyways, thanks again.Puhlaa (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think most of us started as IPs, not understanding how things worked here or if we were interested in staying. It's all innocent unless misused to create the impression of it being different people, or used to split one's contribution history, thus "avoiding the scrutiny of other editors", something that is forbidden here. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Understood and agreed.Puhlaa (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ref names and quote marks

I just saw this edit where you add quote marks. They aren't normally necessary. Read this:

"...or replace the unacceptable blank space with an acceptable symbol such as an underscore or a hyphen (e.g., <ref name=name_more/> or <ref name=name-more/>), thus eliminating the need for quotation marks." Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Footnotes

When there is no space it's never necessary, and when there is a space, just use an underline (or add quotes). -- Brangifer (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks for the advice!Puhlaa (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

X-factor

X-factor, with regard to the article doctor, would you please stop removing chiropractic from the list of healthcare professions that use the title 'doctor' professionally. In North America, chiropractic is the largest alternative medical profession,(1) and is the third largest doctored profession, behind medicine and dentistry.(2) Therefore, if you feel that the list is too long, there are less prominent healthcare professions that you can omit. However, in my opinion, it seems simpler to keep the list more inclusive rather than single out any of the doctored professions as not-deserving of inclusion, which might be mistakenly considered as an editor pushing their POV. Best regards, Puhlaa (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Kaptchuk TJ, Eisenberg DM (1998) Chiropractic: origins, controversies, and contributions. Arch Intern Med 158 (20): 2215–24.
Smith M, Morschhauser S. Establishing a database of U.S. chiropractic health manpower data: furthering the development of research infrastructure. National Library of Medicine. http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102184948.html

Thanks for the message, Puhlaa. I can understand your concern over my April 21 edit, however, as I noted on the edit, this encyclopedic entry is not meant to be a comprehensive list. It is an article on usage, and is not meant to list every possible instance of said usage. It was beginning to read more like a list rather than an encyclopedic reference. Also, I must note that your wish to include your own profession among those in the article certainly might be seen as asserting POV as well. That said, I appreciate your sources and am willing to leave chiropractic on the list, but I noticed that in the month or so since I last edited chiropractic out of the list of professions another editor has done the same so you may have to convince more editors than myself of the value of your argument for this addition. X-factor

Vertebral Subluxation, Veterinary Chiropractic

Bullrangifer is making unfounded accusations and deleting peer-reviewed literature from articles I recently edited. Do you mind providing some help in reviewing this manner? DVMt (talk) 08:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

DVMt, you need to read BRD and MEDRS. You are now in violation and are edit warring. Regardless if you are 10,000% right in the content of your edits, you can get blocked for doing that. We edit by collaboration and consensus here. I suggest you immediately revert your last reversion at Veterinary chiropractic. If you do that you can save yourself, otherwise a charge against you will be well-grounded. Now discuss on the talk pages, don't edit war. That's how things are done here. Using peer-reviewed sources is the minimum requirement. They must also be secondary, not primary, sources. Read WP:MEDRS. I am not the only one who has reverted you, so I suggest you stop forum shopping and get to those talk pages. I am busy and there is no rush. Wikipedia will be here tomorrow and all next week, so don't get impatient. Changing long-standing content the way you have done usually meets resistance, so this is par for the course. Don't take it personally. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not edit waring, I am discussing your blanket revert of contributions. You did not discuss any concerns prior to reverting nor have you specifically addressed any problems with the sources I'm citing. Secondary and tertiary sources are preferred; but the content is recent and thus not currently available in a systematic review. I have read WP:MEDRS and all my edits here have abided by that standard. I understand your POV and am not taking it personally. I have asked formally on the talk pages for a discussion as to your reversions and you have not yet provided an answer as to what sources you are disputing. I would appreciate you do so and I don't believe it is a problem asking other editors to provide more an opinion on the matter. Though I can appreciate you being busy, as are most professionals editing here at Wikipedia, unless you provide specific objections to the content that was added and prove allegations that the content violated NPOV and MEDRS I'm going to seek other remedial avenues if we cannot come to a mutual understanding. DVMt (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Puhlaa. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 02:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank You!

Hello- I wanted to thank you for your help and swift response to my query. It is upsetting to know that potential benefits to SM could potentially be averted through exposure to this article, but it is not worth contesting.--K ^f a _v 15:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment

That's somewhat ironic actually, since I didn't really make changes to the actual content of the paragraph! I'll keep thinking about potential improvements, but since the issue seems to have been at least partially resolved, I'm hoping things will be quieter for a bit while I catch up on some real-life things. Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure that I follow the irony? I am always willing to address your concerns, feel free to clarify what bothered you. A valid POV regarding CAM being pushed out of the lead clearly does not bother you... I would not say that the issue is resolved, but there was not much point in pushing a point that currently represents the minority view among interested editors; we know that consensus, not truth, is what rules wikipedia. I presume that I will be back at the talk page when there are other editors that share my POV that also take an interest there :) Until then, there is never a shortage of other articles to improve. Puhlaa (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The irony was that I wasn't actually intending to make a new proposal, only to simplify and clarify Park's. I'll take it for now though, since I do think that version is an improvement as I described on talk. Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

My comment was "Arc, your edits are better than the list of definitions, but still fail NPOV...". I was implying that I was happy to see the text read more like an encyclopedia, rather than a list of definitions, but that your edits did not improve the WP:NPOV issue at all. Puhlaa (talk) 06:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, it was intended to be a stylistic edit, mainly because it was the live version. I didn't expect the discussion to end. And again, I think that this version (while not perfect) better reflects the sources; I am open to being convinced (through discussion on the article talk page with input from everyone), but please don't just repeat yourself - as friendly advice, you seem to be doing a lot of that. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but you need to point out how your position addresses the responses of other editors as well. Arc de Ciel (talk) 11:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion ended because I felt that none of you 3 would address the concerns regarding NPOV. Note that while I have repeated myself multiple times, you, Tippy and Scray have not yet commented on the WP:NPOV concerns, hence the continued repitition. Arc, Your only comment has been that you think it is good now? You have noted that other editors have shown-up and expressed similar sentiments as mine, but not addressed their concerns either. I think we have enough consensus there now to justify re-approaching the lead again. Thus, I will be proposing clear edits to the current lead, 1 sentence at a time to keep discussion focused. I apologize if I repeat myself again in my proposals...are you willing to re-address a few concerns? Puhlaa (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV has to do with making sure the text reflects the sources, including evaluating their WP:WEIGHT. When I use the term "weight," I am talking about NPOV. See for example here. I also presented concerns about the sources that you're using (for example, in the same diff) but I haven't seen any reasons for dismissing those concerns. As I have said, I think that the weight of reliable sources supports the current definition more strongly than the broader definition and I have given reasons for why I think that. In other words, I think that the current definition is closer to WP:NPOV than the broader definition. The discussion is about NPOV, not about trying to ignore it.

I have tried my best to respond directly - although I don't usually see the need to respond to something when another person already has. Please let me know if you think I'm avoiding a specific argument (but please check, and if I talked about something similar please explain what I missed). I am generally willing to "re-address" something in order to clarify, but I would like to know whether my previous comments have been taken into account, and if not, why not. This seems intended to be a repetition, but it's practically identical to statements you've made previously and doesn't include any description of why you feel the previous responses weren't adequate. I could respond by copypasting my previous responses, I don't really see what purpose that would serve. Arc de Ciel (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Arc, thank you for your courtesy and willingness to continue discussion and thank you for clarifying why you are frustrated with my continued challenges. You stated "I think that the weight of reliable sources supports the current definition more strongly than the broader definition and I have given reasons for why I think that." I apologize if I did not respond to your comments regarding my concerns in our original discussion, would you be willing to briefly discuss the following 3 concerns of mine again? Please note that I have included discussion of what I think I heard from you in response to these concerns previously, this way, if I have misunderstood or missed something, you can correct me. I have also tried to explain why your comments did not satisfy me during our original discussion. I would appreciate it if you would comment on the 3 concerns individually, but that is your prerogative.
It is my understanding that we are currently discussing the merits of two different 'themes' of CAM definitions (NYAS/CMAJ/NSF/etc and BMJ/WHO/NCCAM/etc) that are both currently used in our lead, and both used by a number of RS found in a pubmed search. The disagreement is over which definition deserves more weight according to WP:NPOV. The policy/source-based differences between them, in my view are:

What is the more commonly used definition, so that WP:UNDUE can be applied to determine weight? To be objective, we could check the first 1000 sources in a pubmed search of CAM and see what defintion is more commonly used, thus, what deserves more weight according to WP:UNDUE. However, the BMJ/NCCAM theme of definitions already has an independedent, secondary source that says it is an 'inclusive' and 'commonly used' definition. I believe that the response you gave was that a single source is not sufficient, and you questioned PLoS One. PLoS One is a mainstream journal and the article is subjected to rigorous peer-review according to . Yes, there is only one independent source that asses the BMJ?NCCAM theme, but the 'NYAS' theme of definitions does not have ANY independent sources that state that their definition is commonly used, or valid, or recognized, etc. According to WP:UNDUE, the BMJ theme deserves more weight in this specific regard.
I believe that you suggested that if the NY Academy of Sciences supports the theme of definition, it is very reliable, even if no independent sources assess it. However, the NYAS does not endorse the definition used in our lead! If you look on the copyright page it says that the book is "a forum and the positions are those of the authors, not necessarily those of the Academy and the NYAS does not intend to influence legistlation with the forum provided". Thus, the definition in our lead is that of the specific authors, not the Academy in any way. In addition, another source that uses the 'NYAS' theme in the lead (ie: the CMAJ 'news brief') is not even a peer-reviewed RS. The weight of reliable sources that support the current definition in the lead is getting smaller; how many RS are remaining that use this definition when NYAS and CMAJ are removed? Have any international medical organizations published a CAM definition that is similar to the 'NYAS' theme? The article should represent a universal POV. The BMJ definition is similar to international medical organizations definitions, like the WHO . WP:UNDUE thus still seems to suggest that the BMJ theme deserves more weight.
In my proposal I have shown 3 RS that contradict the idea that CAM and conventional medicine can be defined based on whether or not they have 'some evidence based on the scientific method' (ie: some CAM do have evidence via the scientific method and many conventional therapies do not ). This is RS verification for the idea that the 'NYAS' theme is not accurate. I have not seen any RS that suggest that the BMJ definition is not 100% accurate. I have heard you say that it is too broad, but you have not provided a RS to support your opinion. If I missed it, I apologize, but it actually seems that 'Broad' is preferred/better in the opinion of most authors, which is why it is 'commonly used' according to a reliable source. Do any Reliable Sources suggest that the BMJ/NCCAM definition is not Accurate? Commonly used? Inclusive? If not, why resist making it the lead sentence again? Especially when the current lead definition does have RS that suggest it is flawed?

I believe that the above 3 concerns accurately summarize why I am repeating my challenges of the current lead according to WP:NPOV and why I have proposed moving the sentences around . Puhlaa (talk) 07:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the summarization and your responses. I have started writing a response and will try and finish it soon. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I've written my reply, though of course others may use different arguments even if they reach the same conclusion. I tried to be very comprehensive, even when repeating myself, and I'm quite tired right now so I hope it's coherent (and that I didn't miss anything). I have included footnotes with a number of side comments, qualifications, and clarifications to try and make my responses easier to follow.

I won't be able to make another long response – I may make some brief comments on the talk page but I really need to pay attention to other things. Also, this should be taking place on the article talk page - it really should be copied over, but I'll leave that to you if you want to continue the discussion.

1. Not all the sources are in Pubmed, and in fact that isn't a necessary criterion for reliability (for example, the WHO article is not indexed there). Search hits are not generally a good indication to use – Pubmed is probably better than Google, but it doesn't reflect article quality. Some Pubmed-indexed journals are not peer-reviewed, or may not have reliable peer review.^[1] Filtering the journals by impact factor would help, though that measurement itself has problems.

I would propose filtering your pubmed search by type of study. When I filter only secondary sources (syst. rev., meta analysis and narrative reviews) of a search of CAM on pubmed, amost every RS that provides a definition of CAM use a definition similar to BMJ/NCCAM. I cannot find any sources that mention NYAS or NSF, or their theme of definition in the first few pages.

I didn't intend to question PLoS One as a source, and in fact I frequently read research papers published there. The point (which was a relatively minor one) was that the peer review covers only methodology – they "publish all papers that are judged to be technically sound" – as the link you gave indicates.^[2] The more important point is that "commonly used" can be implied by where material is published and the context it is in.^[3] This is broader than just the NYAS; see my answer to part 2.

You did not address the issue that one theme has an independent source specifically stating that it is commonly used; whereas, I cannot find a recent source that discusses the NSF or NYAS theme of definition. You say the definition needs to be used by the relevant experts; are you saying that the BMJ/NCCAM/WHO authors are not included among "the relevant experts"? Don't you think that the authors of the RS that called the NCCAM definition "commonly known and used" are relevant experts? A pubmed search of CAM reveals dozens of RS that use the NCCAM theme, none of these authors are relevant experts? If you still don't agree, what about Edzard Ernst? He is an author on this source , it uses the WHO definition, which is of the same theme as BMJ/NCCAM. Clearly it is commonly used by the relevant experts; according to WP:UNDUE it should get more weight. Puhlaa (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

2. True; thank you for the correction. However, since it was still published by the academy, it still carries significant weight – still more than the Nature articles, which (like the BMJ) are already some of the highest-weight sources you can find. Though looking at the same page, I also found that the book represents the content of a conference that was sponsored by the NYAS, which raises the weight partway back again.

We can agree that both themes have some of the highest weight sources that are available. The forum was sponsored by NYAS yes, but that does not change that the RS clearly states that the NYAS does not endorse the opinions that come from the forum. This is unquestionably the authors definition, not one endorsed by the NYAS. I dont see how the fact that NYAS paid for the forum gives any weight to the definition? Puhlaa (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the list is that small, actually; and at least most of them are very strong sources.^[4] I would even grant you the CMAJ source on this issue^[5] as the rest are more than sufficient, even though we haven't really mentioned them as you've focused on NYAS and CMAJ (so has everyone else, to be honest). The NSF, for example, is the basic-science counterpart to the NIH.^[6] It seems that the majority of the scientific community defines alternative medicine in that way – and of course the scientific community is what determines whether something follows the scientific method. In fact, those who focus on evaluating science/nonscience (such as Sagan) are among the most reliable sources of all for this. There is another source in the article body (Dawkins) which is not cited in the lead but carries similar weight in terms of science/nonscience evaluation. The same is true for Beyerstein, and for Gross and Levitt.^[7]

You dont think the list supporting NYAS is small, but only refs 1, 3, 6, and 7 use the NYAS/NSF theme? We have agreed that CMAJ is not RS, thus there are only 3 sources left? You thus incorrectly state that the NSF/NYAS theme has more sources. Moreover, in 5 minutes I could find a half-dozen free full texts for current, mainstream, medical journal articles that use the BMJ/NCCAM definition: , , , , , . I did not find any that used the NYAS/NSF theme. You correctly state that the NSF is equal weight to the NIH. NCCAM is a part of the NIH! Moreover, note that many of the sources I just listed actually attribute the BMJ/NCCAM theme of definition to NIH itself. Now I have presented RS that WP:Verify that NIH endorses the BMJ/NCCAM/WHO/Cochrane theme and that it is 'well known' and 'commonly used' and 'inclusive'. I have also provided a much longer list of mainstream medical journals that use this definition! Moreover, no RS contradict this theme of definition. I cannot seem to find any sources in the first few pages of a Pubmed search of CAM that use the NSF/NYAS theme, have you found any? Can you find any RS that says the NYAS/NSF theme is used by anyone?Puhlaa (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

For your "international medical organizations" question, there is only one such organization being cited right now (the WHO) - but this is part of why I still think there could be improvement. It's very uncommon for such a discrepancy to exist between these groups.^[8] Like I've said, I think that if the only change were to move that sentence to the front, it would still be a good lead – it's just that on balance I think this one is better.

So are you in agreement with my concern? That one international medical organization uses a definition consistent with the BMJ/NCCAM theme and zero international medical orgainizations use the theme of the NSF/NYAS? Puhlaa (talk) 08:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Side comment: reading the WHO definition again, it also looks like it isn't presented as universal either^[9] – specifically, the definition refers to the countries in which CM and AM are used interchangeably with "traditional medicine."^[10]^[11]

The theme is the same between BMJ and WHO and NCCAM and multiple other RS provided above, picking at words like "that" and "they" and "first/third world" to make a point seems to represent "grasping at straws". I have provided a RS authored by Edzard Ernst above that uses the WHO definition, if he doesnt question it, why should we? The issue is which theme should carry more weight. I have been unable to locate any independent assessments of the NSF or NYAS theme. Can you see my concern? You have also tried to suggest that the BMJ/NCCAM theme is not actually inclusive based on your own analysis? Can you provide any RS that says BMJ/NCCAM is not inclusive? I have indeed already provided a reliable source that says it IS "inclusive" and here is another independent reliable source that describes the NCCAM theme as "a more comprehensive definition". Can you see my concern here? Puhlaa (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

3. The RS that suggest that the BMJ definition is "not 100% accurate" are NYAS etc. This entire point (save the single PLoS source which I responded to above) applies in both directions, and would be equally accurate if you switched NYAS and BMJ.^[12]

I provided the 3 RS that contradict the NYAS definition and you did not even mention them; why are you ignoring this? I also disagree with your premise that the NYAS and BMJ are contradictory. The BMJ/NCCAM theme of definition includes those CAMs with evidence AND those without evidence. The NYAS theme identifies a subgroup of CAM, those without evidence. The NYAS theme excludes those CAMs that have evidence, thus, the BMJ theme cannot equally be applied as a subgroup under the NSF theme. Puhlaa (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

But anyways, what I said was that it does not purport to be a definition.^[13] As you said, it is inclusive: in other words, it says "all of CAM falls within this category" but does not say "everything within this category is CAM" – in other words, it gives a criterion which is necessary but not sufficient. It is a factual statement and can be cited for that, but the first sentence of the article is expected to contain a definition.^[14]

It does indeed purport to be a definition! The BMJ article provides it's under the heading:Definitions and terms. The "NCCAM defines CAM as a ....". I have also provided multiple RS from mainstream journals that use the BMJ/NCCAM/WHO sources specifically for their definition and state this fact, including one by Edzard Ernst! You have synthesized a rational for why the BMJ/NCCAM theme may be flawed, and it may be a correct rational, however you have not provided any reliable source that supports your synthesis. You cannot use WP:OR to apply more weight to one theme over another that has WP:V Puhlaa (talk) 08:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that Park had a good example with the contraceptive pill; a political decision prevented doctors from offering it. This puts it in the category described but does not make it CAM; in fact, would seem to imply that it could switch back and forth between CAM and regular medicine based on governmental policy. If we started with an inclusive definition (which would also include treatments that are not CAM) and then specify which of the treatments in the group are CAM, but the second would remain the definition, so it should then be rearranged so the definition comes first. ^[15]

While I find your and Park's thoughts interesting, they are irrelevant here as they are not supported by RS (or am I mistaken?). This is not acceptable logic for making decisions on how to edit articles; we use policy and RS. I feel like you are ignoring policy-based and reliable sources-based challenges of the current lead and sharing your 'thoughts on the matter' instead. Why do you think that the BMJ definition includes any non-CAMs? Do you have a RS to support this idea? Even if so, the relevant experts seem to use it commonly anyways, so we as editors should not question it unless we have RS. Puhlaa (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

One of the more common ways of reading that definition is that anything which becomes based on scientific evidence becomes no longer CAM. Or rather, if scientific consensus on (say) acupuncture was that it was effective and a useful treatment to offer (i.e. compared to other interventions that treat the same disease), then anyone who started offering acupuncture based on this analysis would be engaging in conventional medicine, but anyone who continued to offer it based on a belief on qi would remain CAM. The words "based on" are important, as has been pointed out on the talk page – there is indeed some evidence gathered through the scientific method, but that doesn't contradict the current definition. I proposed "but has no or insufficient evidence to justify its effectiveness" as an alternative which I think is more clear^[16]^[17] but nobody responded.

Arc, you say that there are some CAM with some evidence, but you don't agree that this contradicts the current lead because of the words 'based on'? Is our great encyclopedia going to rely on the words 'based on' to ensure that readers know that some CAMs have evidence? I did not see anyone complain when every mention of CAMs with evidence was removed from the lead, but there is strong objection to move a 'commonly used' and 'inclusive' definition to the front? This causes me concern! You want to add "but has no or insufficient evidence to justify its effectiveness" Have you read the RS I posted in my proposal? Acupuncture is more than placebo and MDs should consider it a referal option for pain! This is not insufficient evidence and acupunture for pain is still considered a CAM! What about the source that found 30% of 200 Cochrane reviews showed "evidence of positive effect". When Cochrane reviews say there was evidence, this is the highest quality evidence according to WP:MEDRS. This is not the same as insufficient evidence either. Puhlaa (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Footnotes:

[1]
Besides, you'd also have to define consistent criteria for what counts as a definition, read every one of the articles, etc. Or rather, we would prefer a well-regarded editor new to the discussion to do it.
[2]
Side comment: incidentally, a journal's statement that they have reliable peer-review is not actually sufficient to establish that they do, but PLoS One far surpasses what would be necessary to determine that.
[3]
Qualification: "commonly used among the relevant experts" is what we're looking for, of course. A common popular opinion is notable only for its popularity.
[4]
Besides, if you're only "counting" sources, the broader definition has fewer of them as things stand right now. :-)
[5]
I think it unlikely that it is peer-reviewed but couldn't find any information about it. Side comment: it would still be stronger than an equivalent article in a good newspaper. Also, it is a "feature" rather than "news"; and the words "in brief" refers to the abstract, which is the first paragraph and is the part published in both English and French.
[6]
For example: comparing the NSF to the BMJ (if those were our only two sources), the NSF would generally be the more authoritative source.
[7]
The editors of the NYAS book/conference proceedings.
[8]
But also see note 13: "As an addition...for this reason."
[9]
Remembering again that "universal among the relevant experts" is the goal, not simply "universal" – just to clarify again, since you didn't mention that.
[10]
Grammatical analysis, to be specific: the sentence "They refer..." uses the word "that" in front of "country" instead of using "a" or "any." The word "that" is a pronoun which refers to "some countries" from the preceding sentence.
[11]
Which countries these are, and how many there are, would also be important. Countries with the most developed medical systems, mainly the First World, would carry the most weight.
[12]
Also, a definition that's too broad is no better than a definition that's too narrow; I'm not sure why it would be better a priori.
[13]
As an addition to the last paragraph: I do think it's reasonable to say the sources aren't directly in contradiction, for this reason.
[14]
Unless we did some kind of merger of the two, such as "...a group of practices outside of conventional medicine (citations) that are not based on evidence gathered with the scientific method (citations)"
[15]
An analogy would be starting NATO with "NATO is a group of countries primarily in North America and Europe..." – we have a more specific definition available (an alliance of countries which have signed the treaty) and the article starts with that. "Group of countries" is a true statement but is not the defining characteristic.
[16]
Specifically, that there can be evidence, just not yet enough to justify using it as a treatment. This would prevent people from interpreting the sentence as saying only no evidence, which I think is reasonably likely.
[17]
I was actually thinking of proposing that change for separate consideration once the current discussion had subsided. I still might, but it seems to me that it might just reopen the discussion with people trying to get it back to the first version and ignoring the actual question I'm trying to raise.

The lead, and after

Its good to see you haven't given up on AM, and may I wish you well. I have mentioned before my abstention from producing or checking sources of specialist journals. But as an intelligent enough reader I can smell what another editor called bs. The most blatant perhaps shameless error has been putting, leaving or restoring "propaganda" and "fraud" in the lead, which are not so found in the body of the article. It stretches the credibiity of good faith. You must know the faults better than I do, so I will not go on in further detail. Some of the more soft spoken editors seem to be the most resistant, possibly due to personal convictions too intense to cope with normal reasoning, but capable of working up a pseudo-consensus against improvements. At this stage, there is nothing much I can add in your support. Qexigator (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Qexigator, thanks for the message. It would be nice if you continued to stay involved at AM. If you are too busy to propose changes, it would be helpful if you would at least support proposals for change that you agree with (by adding a simple and brief comment of support). If you do not support proposed changes, please comment along those lines. Thanks. This will help us determine where consensus lies. I am hopeful that all of the other editors who have stopped-in to comment will also return to state their opinions of the proposed changes. Note that I will be moving slow, one change at a time. Puhlaa (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Slow... --Qexigator (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The comment at 00:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC) is verbose and OTT may be, but it has a point if you can find it. I have noted your reply at 00:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC). As I see it, back of all this (apart from goodwill) are problems of reasoning and semantics about 1_"medicine" as such, absolutely and in practice, 2_"alternative", proper use of, 3_ medicine and alternative used together as a single term. Each of 1,2 and 3 have a variety of uses according to context and intent. In combination the variations are multiple, and the opportunity for argument for its own sake is too attractive for some not to take, or perhaps they cannot avoid falling into. So, 1st- is the lead at Medicine acceptable? It starts with a definition sourced to OED, but those at 2 and 3 show the risk of mischief opening up. Then it has links for applied science, diagnosis, treatment and disease. The next sentence has links for health care, health etc.. The next sentence contracts the general definition to contempory medicine by introducing, with links, health science, biomedical research, medical technology, medication and surgery. 2nd-Alternative, see [] "1.Relating to a choice between two or more possibilities 2. Not traditional, outside the mainstream, underground (e.g.,alternative medicine..." Then "alternative medicine" at [] gives "any of various medical methods and practices used in place of, or as well as, conventional medicine. Now, as I see it, as a preliminary to formulating any lead for the AM article within whatever "policy" requires, it is necessary to have worked through the terms as being used at 1st and 2nd above, to consider what part of the 1st is the content to which the other is "alternative". Then to compare that with the definitions in the proposed exsting sources. That is intellectually more arduous than it may seem. Hence the difficulty which all sources have for giving a truthful definition for their own specific and particular context and purpose, and the further difficulty of selecting and reconciling such sources for the purposes of an article which has no (good faith) purpose other than giving a reasonably intelligent reader information about the topic. And at the same time the field becomes an adventure playground if anyone is minded to come out to play.Qexigator (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry Q, your comment is very difficult to follow....you are talking about the lead at medicine?, but that just compicates things. Can we keep the discussion simple and to the point please. It does not need to be difficult or complex. The issue I am currenlty making at Alt Med is simply that the lead does not adhere to WP:NPOV. There may be other issues as well, but lets just stick to one issue at a time. If you agree that the AM lead violates WP:NPOV then please comment at the talk page with a clear message that is directly to the point being raised (ie: you agree or dont agree that the lead is POV). Then you must consider if you agree with my proposal; if so then again, comment at talk very clearly and succinctly (ie: you agree or dont agree with the proposal).

Wikipedia is more about consensus than truth. If more editors feel that the lead is ok, then it does not matter if their arguments are only "AM is garbage" and have no sources to back it up. I am hoping that a few neutral POV editors will take the time to read the issue as I have presented it and either agree, or disagree and provide policy or reliable sources to support their argument. If the discussion becomes complex and difficult to follow (as your comment above seems to be) then editors just dont read it or comment. To ensure that other editors will take an interest, lets keep the discussion simple, to the point and polite please.Puhlaa (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, Puhlaa, perhaps we can leave it there. My attempt to be helpful evidently is not. There is little purpose in carrying on discussing this, which will only be distracting you from the AM work. "...you must consider if you agree with my proposal"-- no, sir, must is not the vocabulary. My comment here was addressed to you personally to explain why I felt it better to abstain. Your response confirms that. Also, your parting words imply discourteousy, which is not the case. May your endeavour at AM accomplish some improvement. Qexigator (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

My parting words were meant as advice for helping achieve change at the AM article, they were not meant to imply anything. You have always been courteous. Also, you are right, the word 'must' was incorrect, I should rather have said that "it would be helpful if you would consider...". I do admit that I often do not understand the underlying point of your comments on the talk pages, your jargon is very technical/colorful, such as to confuse those like me with simple minds :) Please dont take it as an insult, I am just sharing my perspective. To be honest, I did not get the point that you were 'abstaining', nor that the discussion here was not intended to be specific to the AM article.

Anyways, I do agree that this discussion should be ended if it is not specifically with regard to improving the AM article. Best regards, and again, sorry for the confusion on my part. Puhlaa (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

1_Thanks for offering advice. Though a novice editor at Wikipedia I am not a greenhorn. 2_No intention to confuse, only attempting to clarify. 3_My remarks here were meant to be specific to the tangle at AM (see []), but could have wider application. 4_I have insufficient expertise in this particular topic to discuss the relative merits of specialist sources, and attempting it would be tedious for all parties, hence the sensible and decent thing to do is "abstain". 5_But common sense has been enough to see the point of Tomcat's remarks, and I have made that known (I would like to have said 'abundantly clear') before and after his robust intervention. In my view there can be no improvement which does not start from acknowledging that and making and keeping a revision removing "propaganda" and "fraud" from the lead. That, in my view, is sine qua non and there is a limit to how frequently this can be reiterated in the course of discussion. 6_Like any qualified professional, you will know what is meant by saying the topic is one for grownups not for child's play[]. _7 I'm going to be bold enough to invite you to see this: Talk:Wallace Sampson. I know more about Sinclair Lewis than Sampson, who, for all I know (practically nothing but at Wallace Sampson) could be hoaxing or a hoaxer, as could anyone else known to us or not. But I feel certain that Sinclair Lewis was not, nor reputed to be. --Qexigator (talk) 10:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Q. I read Wallace Sampson. One issue I noticed was that the aricle says he published ANTISCIENCE TRENDS IN THE RISE OF THE “ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE" MOVEMENT in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences in 2006, however, it was not. This was a book that published the proceedings of a forum hosted by the NYAS. However, the NYAS does not endorse the content of the book. If you look on the copyright page it says that the book is "a forum and the positions are those of the authors, not necessarily those of the Academy and the NYAS does not intend to influence legistlation with the forum provided". Thus, the views in this source are those of the specific author, not the Academy in any way. There is a narrative review published in the Annals journal in 1996 , but as a narrative article by one author, it does not carry the weight it is given by attributing it to the NYAS itself. The 1996 article http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8678416] does not carry any more weight than this alternate POV Puhlaa (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

While, as mentioned before, I do not propose to be drawn into a debate about the relative or absolute merits of any of the sources, my view is that various editors have produced and argued for and against the sources to the point where the sources cited to date must seem untrustworthy unless fully checked for 1_authenticity and 2_the passage which is being relied on is made available for scrutiny on the Talk page. Qexigator (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Seeing that Cochrane has been mentioned by some editors at Talk:Alternative medicine it occurs to me to ask whether you are able to say to what extent the editing and sourcing of the article is being determined by Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Evidence based content for medical articles on Wikipedia, Projects/pages of possible interest to Cochrane Collaboration []? If not should it be? If so, has it been declared, or should it be? Qexigator (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Content in any article that is making claims of efficacy should adhere to the highest standards as per WP:MEDRS. However, I dont think that the goal of the Alternative MEdicine article should be to discuss efficacy, because it is too broad and complex a topic. It is better if individual CAM profession articles, or articles discussing specific conditions, deal with this topic. Currently the CAM article does discuss efficacy right from the first sentence, but I am trying to change this. If the discussion is about 'perceptions' of efficacy than I don't think that the highest-quality systematic reviews (such as cochrane reviews) are always necessary; any secondary or tertiary source can be used to support discussions of perception, utilization, integration/isolation, etc. according to WP:RS. Is this what you were asking?Puhlaa (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining about that, and what this part of the discussion is about. Qexigator (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ParkSehJik (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Park, it seems that you do not understand proper collaborative editing or how to avoid edit warring. Your warning here is another example of your tendentious editing, because it is not helping us to improve the article and it is completely unjustified! Your accusation includes 3 diffs; your first diff provides 8 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown...none of the edits included are me reverting anything! The edit summary in your second diff shows that I was only restoring the minor copy-edits that were caught-up in the controversy, but not reverting the controversial sources that were under discussion. I also said as much on the talk page where the sources were under discussion . This is not edit warring behavior, this is an example of collaborative editing on my part. Why did you not include my very next edit in your second diff? where I restore the content under discussion ? Your third diff is indeed me reverting your unjustified removal of improvements to the article. Thus, it seems I am guilty of 1 revert (Which is ok, I have a 1 revert rule for myself). You however, have now reverted me twice & and both of your reverts were removing minor and non-controversial improvements to the article, like reference fixes and organizational copy-edits. You have already acknowledged this in part by restoring 1 of the minor edits that you should not have reverted in the first place . You should now reconsider the rest of your reverts that removed improvements to the article!Puhlaa (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You are on the poinbt of doing it again, and it should also be noted that you have a conflict of interest as well. Stop it. And yes, I am an admin. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Then report me and lets see how others feel about my reverting your edits while adding discussion the entire time on the talk page, and you reverting my reverts while not being willing to engage in real discussion at all? Who do you think is warring here? If you arte an admin then you should know better than to revert without discussion.Puhlaa (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

proof read/chiropractic

The article needs to be proof read, then contradictions(i.e. lead saying there's consensus... then somewhere in body saying there isn't really) and your contentions should be laid out in talk page for discussion. If you find statements that you disagree with, check sources. If sources don't support the prose, tag it. This article right now is very very difficult to follow. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It is nice how you make it sound so easy to improve such a controversial article :) I am sure that you do understand the challenges here, but I agree with your perspective. One question about your edits so far, why did you remove the mention of chiropractic residencies/graduate training from the education section? It seemed sourced and relevant to 'chiropractic education'. The text I am referring to is: "Specialty training is available through part-time postgraduate education programs such as chiropractic orthopedics and sports chiropractic, and through full-time residency programs such as radiology or orthopedics." Also, any thoughts on these edits , which I have mentioned at the talkpage . Seems like they are pushing a POV (chiropractors are not doctors and are not professionals)? I have asked to have the edits undone....do you think I am being unreasonable?Puhlaa (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There's already a dedicated article on chiropractic education, which is linked at the header from the section. There's no need to cover this in this article. It should be covered in the "education" article.

As for the edit, the original phrasing was POV in my opinion. It could be phrased like "chiropractors have a doctoral degree just as dentists and medical doctors". "third largest" implies significance and it has an advertisement tone.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your NPOV perspective; I understand what you are saying with regard to the phrasing and advertisement tone of the original text. With regard to the other concern I had, I still believe that the removal of the text indicating greater acceptance by MDs is unjustified; this is detailed at the chiropractic talk page. Regards Puhlaa (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Which specific text and edit? If you're still talking about the education section, its simply removed from the main article because there's already a in-depth discussion on the target link. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I was not clear. The remaining concern of mine is with regard to JohnSnow's removal of the text describing medical physicians increasing acceptance of chiropractors, I detail my concern here . Puhlaa (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the article is decaying into a bickering status right now. There are several strong handed editors involved in this article with apparently strong opposing views and have difficulty reaching a compromise. I recommend that you read through WP:Requests_for_comment and start an RfC. Basically, name the contentions and briefly explain. Don't write a novel on it. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Edited under different accounts?

A barnstar for you!

ANI discussion notice

Your input would be appreciated

Requested move: Alternative medicine → Complementary and alternative medicine

The moment you've been waiting for...

Acupuncture Page

Your references have helped. The editors are going in the opposite direction and now have changed there are no 'correlates' for acupuncture points to there is no 'existence' of acupuncture points in science. However, I have exhaustively shown multiple sources of scientific measurements on acupuncture points. Further, they continue to maintain bogus research to support that statement with no regard for the Acupuncture TALK page. How do I lodge a complaint for bias and misrepresentation? Would that help?TriumvirateProtean (talk) 03:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Acuhealth. My advice would be to not concern your self with such things, there is no one to complain to, this is how wikipedia works. If you are interested in improving the article, be WP:BOLD and just update the body of the article with relevant text from good sources. There are multiple secondary sources that discuss the topic you are interested in; I have put them on your talk page. As I alluded to at your talk page, my advice is find some good quotes from those sources, add a summary of them in the body of the article, add the appropriate sources and then wait and see what other editors think. However, don't delete any skeptical text, just add a paragraph that uses secondary sources to discuss the evidence to support physical correlates. If it is all secondary, peer-reviewed sources, then make it the first paragraph in the body of the article. Wikipedia can contain skeptical text as well, but more weight should be given to peer-reviewed, secondary sources. Once you have updated the body and other editors have had their chance to comment/edit this text, then we can see if the lead needs to be changed, if the section heading needs to be changed, etc. Puhlaa (talk) 04:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Good advice. Thank you. At this point, given the amount of research that I have put on the TALK page and the unkind reception it has had, I view the acupuncture page as a slanted attack piece.TriumvirateProtean (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Why do you view it as "a slanted attack piece"? Because it documents the existence of POV that are unfavorable to acupuncture? What about NPOV? Do you deny that such skeptical opinions exist? Wikipedia's goal is to document the sum total of human knowledge, and that includes all significant POV. Others who do not share your POV, like myself, could be tempted to consider the existence of claims "for" acupuncture in the article as making it "a slanted promotional piece". What solution do you propose? Should this be a sales brochure for acupuncture, or one against it? Fortunately NPOV requires that it be neither because it must contain both POV. Neither POV "wins", but the mainstream scientific consensus does get the favorable treatment, and so far acupuncture fares poorly. That's one reason it is still classified as "alternative medicine" (AM). Some day, if it gets proven, it will no longer be classified as AM and will become mainstream, without resistance from skeptics. Then the article will reflect that fact, but that day has not come. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed reference format for Alternative medicine

Disambiguation link notification for October 6

Your submission at AfC Thermomonosporaceae was accepted

January 2014

Your recent editing history at Chiropractic shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You are actually on 4RR and to avoid being blocked should self revert straight away Roxy the dog (resonate) 20:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC) Roxy the dog (resonate) 20:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey Roxy, I wonder if you have read WP:BRD. I have reverted you and John per WP:BRD because you and John are trying to remove text from the lede that has achieved consensus and is verified per this discussion. Per BRD, YOU now must go to the talk page and discuss why you want to change the consensus version and replace it with a new version. My suspicion is that you have not read WP:BRD or do not understand it, because you have incorrectly used it to warn me when it is you who is removing the consensus version again WP:BRD. I am willing to discuss your suggested change to the consensus version at the talk page, but the consensus version stays in place until new consensus is reached.Puhlaa (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi (talk)..what on earth has happened to the chiropractic page? It appears to have been hijacked by QuackGuru — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJFryzy (talk • contribs) 08:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome!

Per WP:RS

Refs

Talkbacks

Chiropractic

The ref

Ipsock template

Ref names and quote marks

X-factor

Vertebral Subluxation, Veterinary Chiropractic

Dispute resolution survey

Thank You!

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Comment

The lead, and after

3RR

proof read/chiropractic

Edited under different accounts?

A barnstar for you!

ANI discussion notice

Your input would be appreciated

Requested move: Alternative medicine → Complementary and alternative medicine

The moment you've been waiting for...

Acupuncture Page

Proposed reference format for Alternative medicine

Disambiguation link notification for October 6

Your submission at AfC Thermomonosporaceae was accepted

January 2014

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

ArbCom elections are now open!

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Related Articles

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for keeping a cool head at Chiropractic for so long and for continually raising the level of discussion away from personal attacks to high quality sources. It's definitely noticed by me and I believe as well by some who hold different views of Chiropractic than you. Keep it up ;) Ocaasi^{t \| c} 19:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)