Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:47, 31 December 2013

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Petitioning Jimmy Wales

May be of (mild) interest to this NB. Alexbrn 20:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

What the author of the "petition" does not realize is that Jimbo does not set policy. The community as a whole does that. Blueboar (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit that I find the doublethink in these sorts of petitions more than a little odd. "I pledge not to donate to your fundraising efforts until these changes have been made." In other words, "You can't have our money until you change Misplaced Pages to reflect our preferred version of The Truth"...which, incidentally, is very hard to distinguish in principle from the bribe-taking so many fringe believers accuse us of with respect to Big Pharma. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Appeals for a change in policy accompanied by financial inducements are likely to be treated with the contempt they deserve. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

These butthurt natureopaths, accupuncturists and merchants of woo-woo should just fork all of wikipedia and make their own site where they can preach their holistic gospel entirely unmolested by nasty sceptical type people. Failing that the TRUTHers should have a go at submitting their article to Conservapedia instead. I feel that might sufficient to educate most people as to the consequences of rampant POV editing. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

There's always Wiki4CAM. Alexbrn 06:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Wiki4CAM isn't going anywhere fast. bobrayner (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to do a short feature for The Pod Delusion about this. I'd appreciate any comments you might have . Thanks! --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Wiki4Cam went a bit further than asking skeptics not to edit articles - it got locked down completely, simply because there was no other way to ensure that edits fit the owner's perspective. That kind of lockdown is a good way to kill a wiki. There are various other alt-med sites which struggle with similar problems; it may not be helpful to focus on that one, and I'd be amazed if there weren't more forks of en.wikipedia devoted to alt-med. One well-known alt-med organisation in Europe tried operating a forum for a while, and after I got into the habit of replying to each forum post with a comment concerning evidence, they suddenly and silently took the forum offline. bobrayner (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, I never attempted to edit an article in Wiki4Cam, however it did occur to me that I could simply invent an utterly fictional modality and their policy would actually prevent any evidence-based challenges to my point of view. The implication is that without policies such as Misplaced Pages has it's impossible to build a community. The one exception may be Conservapedia which is fuelled by rage against the dang libruls who write all their software for free! --Salimfadhley (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe that happened, and for some time there was an article on "Tree therapy". Alexbrn 06:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

AIDS denialism in John Maddox bio

There's an unexplained passage in this bio about a 1983 article Maddox wrote which expressed some doubt about the AIDS viral hypothesis. This article seems to be a favorite of AIDS denialists looking for scientific support for their theses. I gather that Maddox's views evolved but I'm not doing so well in finding good documentation of this. Any help in fleshing out the section would be appreciated, especially someone who has access to Nature on-line. Mangoe (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

How about these?

• Where the AIDS Virus Hides Away: "Duesberg, having led many people with AIDS on a seductive path, should now admit the likelihood that he is mistaken."
• Has Duesberg a right of reply? (in the context of refusing Duesberg publication space in Nature): "The truth is that a person's "right of reply" may conflict with a journal's obligations to its readers to provide them with authentic information...When he offers a text for publication that can be authenticated, it will if possible be published - not least in the hope and expectation that his next offering will be an admission of recent error."

More at this Pubmed search. You can trace the evolution of his views as you go further down the list. :-) Sunrise (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, the 1983 article was quote-mined, which I have fixed (I will leave the rest to others). Sunrise (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to find some material which isn't behind Nature's firewall? I could find a library around here which has the back issues but it would also be useful to have a source that was completely independent of Maddox, notwithstanding the problem that his editorials are really a primary source anyway. Mangoe (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't they be sufficient to describe his own views? That said, Google Books turns up this result by Nicoli Nattrass, which describes the context of some of the editorials. As above, this is mainly about Maddox's views towards Duesberg, but I think it's clear that they don't agree (e.g. "Maddox became infuriated ") TBH I think the change of viewpoint is too obvious to be stated directly - there wasn't any scientific consensus on the question when he wrote the editorial (HIV hadn't even been isolated yet), and like most everyone else his viewpoint responded to the evidence as it became available. Sunrise (talk) 07:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

My problem with the Nature articles is their relative inaccessibility. That said, I appreciate your submission. I also note a certain consistency across his obituaries in various publications which I intend to use as a template for clean up. Mangoe (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It would be good if more of Nature's content were freely available, but it's eminently citable. The main problem is not what Maddox said but when he said it: any opinion ventured on AIDS much before the mid-80s was speculation, and the scientific community treats it as such unless subsequently confirmed. It doesn't surprise me that the Duesbergites cite this, they are scientifically ignorable even if they are a public health menace. I would say that it should be covered only in the context of the misrepresentation by AIDS denialists; on its own the comment is obiter dictum and of no real significance. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I've got access to Nature back to 1997 so anyone is welcome to ask me for articles regarding this. I've also asked at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request if anyone has access to the 1983 article. Gamaliel (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Some things that seemed relevant: Gamaliel (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• "he was also fearless in taking on what he held to be irresponsible reporting, as when he roundly defeated The Sunday Times in its espousal of a misguided and socially dangerous theory of the causation of AIDS." Walter Gratzer "John Maddox (1925–2009)" 458, 983-984 (2009) doi:10.1038/458983a
• "He truly believed that those casting doubt on links between HIV and AIDS were scientifically pernicious, and campaigned accordingly" Philip Campbell "Maddox by his successor" 17 April 2009 | 458, 985-986 (2009) | doi:10.1038/458985a

Here is the 1983 article. Gamaliel (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to be a party-pooper, but... is that a link to copyvio? bobrayner (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

It is a temporary link to a legally obtained article shared for educational purposes. Gamaliel (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Having looked at a bunch of obituaries they are quite consistent about the two controversies Maddox was notably involved in. Those that mention AIDS at all don't talk about this very early in the game editorial, so I'm thinking it needs to be suppressed as misleading people about how he swung around to a strong opposition to the denialists. Mangoe (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos

Hi everyone. I think I am on the right track at Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos but I could use a few more eyes everyone. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be a WP:POVFORK of the article The Perth Group. Not sure Papadopulos-Eleopulos is notable, and the present bio looks like it's being used as a WP:COATRACK. LuckyLouie (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering on the same lines, but on balance because of the importance of the group in relation to South African government policy, perhaps this can stay separate. If it's to stay, it's a BLP, and would be worked up as a biography. It certainly doesn't advocate for the subject's views, well done for that, especially well done for keeping out the totally irrelevant views of Camille Paglia. It would need more on the subject's education, career and writings. For biographies, it's not so much "what does s/he think?' but "what has s/he done?". Itsmejudith (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The Papadopulos-Eleopulos article isn't a POVFORK - it doesn't reflect a POV different from the Perth Group article, and it was in fact created prior to that article. That Paglia's views are irrelevant has been several times asserted, but never demonstrated. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree with LuckyLouie this is POVFORK about an individual who is notable only as a member of The Perth Group DUEWEIGHT is given in the article on that group. I see no substantiation of notability for Papadopulos-Eleopulos that warrants a BLP. Is there any coverage of this person that reflects importance outside of activities undertaken as a member of the denialist group? Regardless of the time of creation of the article the notability of the subject needs to be established. The importance of the group does not support the notability of the subject. A review of the content of the article shows nothing outside of the subjects activities and views as a member of The Perth Group. There is no evidence that outside of this group (and largely even within it) that this person's views and actions are notable. An uncredentialed fringe activist with a couple of publications who was rejected as a witness in a court case is not a notable subject for a WP article. This article should be tagged for deletion unless some RS' provide notablity. MrBill3 (talk) 06:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should actually read WP:POVFORK? "POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages policies." That wasn't what happened here. The Papadopulos-Eleopulos article isn't a POVFORK. As for notability, Papadopulos-Eleopulos has influenced government policy in South Africa and played a role in high-profile legal cases, so it seems more than reasonable to consider her notable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

FORK or RACK, it's emphasizing material better suited to the main article. Someone's BLP isn't the place to to rehash the Perth Group's views on AIDS, a judge's trial ruling regarding the Perth Group, and the lack of credentials of its members. LuckyLouie (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Could somebody AfD this article please. The notability discussion seems more appropriate for AfD.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, an AfD is merited. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos open for business. Alexbrn 08:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

No need for AfD IMO, smerge and redirect citing WP:BLP1E (with "event" interpreted slightly creatively) was the right answer - this person is not notable other than as an advocate of the Perth Group's ridiculous AIDS-denialist bullshit; if we have an article on her we'd necessarily spend omst of it simply repeating content from the Perth group article. Guy (Help!) 20:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Leuren Moret

I'm taking this to AfD again. Absolutely nothing to show the subject meets GNG, and the views are very definitely fringe. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Biocentric universe and Robert Lanza

• Biocentric universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Robert Lanza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I came across this little area of quantum woo on Sixty Symbols . I'd like some help in trying to contextualize, sanitize, and organize these two related articles. I'm not even sure the first one deserves an article, so work away and see what you think.

jps (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Apparently this is an idea which applies to art ?!? jps (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Please review all prior discussions on the Biocentric universe, from the long RFC to do with the page title to various past edit wars, so that you are fully up to speed on the high number of hours that editors have already spent on this. It would be best to avoid repeating any work already done. See especially Archive 1 of the Biocentric universe talk page. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Where was it discussed that this idea has anything to do with art? jps (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to your comment on the need for a page for Biocentric universe and the neutrality of its current format--I'd like to ensure all people new to the page are aware of the lengthy process that has already taken place in terms of weighing the facts and opinions on the page. Not that fresh eyes on any entry aren't welcome. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

See my arguments upon why Lanza should not be regarded as an authority on physics at Talk:Robert Lanza#20 W of energy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

When is a myth not a myth

Creationist advocacy has prevented the article on the creation myth in genesis from being named a creation myth in the article title for years. I would like to remedy that:

Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Requested move.

Your input would be appreciated, especially considering that there are likely to be creationist advocates who will show up to complain.

jps (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

More evidence that this is a canvassing board where neutral language is not at all required. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Presenting yourself as a supporter of neutrality here is very dishonest. You want us to say Christianity is true because it has a lot of followers. LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't spin doctor my argument to suit your purpose, AKA strawman. I do NOT want us to say "Christianity is true" nor have I ever implied such, not even once. Get a grip, man. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Treat ALL religions equally. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

..And while you are at it, treat all adherents of a religion equally. Including the majority of Christians, who don't believe Genesis to be literally true... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

And that's purely your polemical assertion about what the majority of Christians supposedly believe according to you! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Data for Americans. . AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

"Literal" and "inspired word" are essentially the same thing. Both end up with the same major beliefs. Christians who believe either would accept the creation story. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Why do you always want to focus exclusively in Americans? What percentage of El Salvadoreans? Ethiopians? Regardless, we can assume it is sufficient to qualify for SPOV purposes as a "widespread belief system" Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that I wanted to focus exclusively on Americans - and I've made it clear elsewhere that I consider the Misplaced Pages tendency to treat the U.S. as the 'default' is one of the worst symptoms of systematic bias on Misplaced Pages. I provided the data in question, however, to demonstrate that I wasn't making a 'polemical assertion' - it was based on evidence. And of course, the U.S. has by far the largest number of people professing to be Christians of any nation in the world. The next largest (according to our Christianity by country article, are Brazil and Mexico - both (like El Salvador for that matter) overwhelmingly Catholic. The Catholic Church certainly no longer holds to any doctrine regarding the literal truth of Genesis. Not that it matters, ultimately. The number of people holding a belief system has no relevance to encyclopedic description of the belief system - and accordingly, we should use the same terminology regardless of whether two thousand people or two hundred million people hold it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

In Creation myth we say: "By far the most well-known creation myth is the Genesis creation narrative." (Really?) Alexbrn 05:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

When is a myth not a myth? When people believe in it, obviously. We're up against something of a hard place (and it's reflected in the discussion) that tagging this sort of religious explanation a "myth" carries along a pejorative connotation (which I imagine was always intended). I'm not getting involved, but I don't think there's going to be a satisfactory solution; either the skeptical or the believer POV is going to win, but we won't end up with neutrality. Mangoe (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter what people believe. Many if not a majority of people believe that seasons are caused by the Earth getting nearer and closer to the Sun. That doesn't and shouldn't affect what we do in Misplaced Pages, right? There is no "skeptical POV" here. There is only the fact that the most reliable sources identify the creation myth in Genesis as -- wait for it -- a creation myth. It's not surprising at all. jps (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

jps, "citation needed" on your statistics, as they say. But at any rate the obvious problem that any adherent can point out is that those "reliable sources" come from the implicit position that Judaeo-Christian claims about divine creation are untrue in any sense; I wouldn't be the first person to point out that this enables the use of "myth". I can't say I'm all that keen on the current title but anyone can see the lack of neutrality. Mangoe (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

We should go with what the best scholarship says. Scholarship being contemporary writing from the appropriate disciplines: theology, social/cultural anthropology, philosophy. I'm seeing quite a lot of work that uses "myth" as a neutral technical term. There is the argument that "myth" is orally transmitted whereas Genesis is a written account. We have to take that seriously, but it's also well established that an orally transmitted tradition lies behind the written Genesis accounts. The other serious argument is that "narrative" is both neutral and accurate. So I am for "myth", but only weakly. Arguments that are irrelevant include whether Christian editors or readers will be upset, and whether we need to strike a blow for Science. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

If there were a better name for it, I would be in favor of that name. It is the creation myth in Genesis. Some have suggested Genesis creation story, but it's obviously more than a story as it is more than a narrative. I also don't get the argument that a myth has to be an oral tradition. Certainly it has to be based on an oral tradition, but just because it is written down, that doesn't mean the myth becomes somehow something else. One source argues that the literary style isn't similar to other myths in the sense that the dramatic tension isn't there. (I don't think that there is an established claim that myths to be myths must have dramatic tension, but in the case of literary analysis almost anything goes if you are established enough.) This source claims we should call it a "report". That's a pretty weird minority view, but I don't see it as being strong enough to argue against calling the title what it is. The problem is that most of the arguments on the page are swirling around whether the term "myth" is biased or non-neutral. These are bogus arguments that prevent really informed discussion from happening as what is occurring here (after Til left the scene). jps (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

@Mangoe Yes, that is what the adherents will object, but sources don't make any implicit assumptions about whether the facticity of the events recounted in the myth or true or not, they just characterize the form of human cultural production as "myth".

I think that many people supporting the change to "myth" do so on the grounds that the argument that there are more current adherents to Christianity than any other religion that has a creation myth that Christians get to call their creation myth a narrative, implying that there is more historical validity to its content due to its currency among believers; hence, whichever religion has the most believers wins the battle for the truth of their stories, etc. Historic truth thus becomes the providence of the victors on the battlefield of religion (to wax poetic). In fact, that is probably close to the actual status of humanity at present, lamentable though some of us may find it. I'm reminded of the saying "history is written by the victors".--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 19:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

List of scientists who disagree with science

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the thimerosal controversy.

This list is an embarrassment. Obviously a knock-off of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming which also deserves deleting.

jps (talk) 03:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that the article should be deleted. Good luck if you want to delete the list of scientists opposing global warming. I fought hammer and tongs to get long quotes removed, which I see now has happened. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

A trend has started: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of scientists known for opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the cause of AIDS. jps (talk) 05:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand this trend with lists. If it is important enough that controversy about a particular subject is included, then it should be in prose, in the main article (or split off). — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that it is simply that it is easier to compose a list than to write a proper article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming now at AFD, pure OR and a BLP vio to boot. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Edits at Traditional Chinese medicine

Numerous outdated non-notable sources are being dumped inside the reference section for no good reason. QuackGuru (talk) 06:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how we're going to be able to referee an expertise battle on this. OTOH listing these as "references" is obviously wrong given that they aren't used as such. Mangoe (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Some of the references inside the reference section are the same as the references in the body of the article. But some of the references in the body are not formatted correctly. Now I am going to have to format the citations in the body of the article to verify the text. QuackGuru (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, QuackGuru is trying to remove long-standing sources, in bulk, without consensus. A lot of these are actually cited in the article (e.g. as "Smith 1985, p.7"), so removing them is destructive. . Some of them are of very high quality . I'm sure the refs can be trimmed, but this is over the top.

QuackGuru is approaching TCM topics the wrong way: making changes without consensus, asserting there is consensus (or otherwise IDHT-ing and misrepresenting the situation), and running here prematurely. I know QG is respected for his work in other fringe areas, but Chinese medicine is a mix of fringe and legit science (e.g. ) and he doesn't grok the nuance, and is a disruptive influence. It's too bad that some editors support him reflexively. --Middle 8 (talk) 05:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The mass WP:EL violation and other disputed text has been restored. See Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Non-notable or duplicate sources moved to talk for the current discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Calm down; you'll probably like the current version . None of this would have happened had both sides AGF'd more and been clearer about specifically what was going on. --Middle 8 (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

We need more outside editors to review the situation. QuackGuru (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Continued problems at Traditional Chinese medicine

Another editor identified the OR/SYN with some of the text. For starters, the part about the "heart-clearing" is SYN. There is also a bigger problem. The new section about Drug discoveries is a WP:WEIGHT violation. I explained on the talk page, I moved only the sourced text that is not about efficacy to other articles. I do not see a reason to have this section with all the low level details. The text about efficacy should stay but it should be merged back into the efficacy section IMO. QuackGuru (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Edits against WP:LOCALCON at German acupuncture trials

According to this comment, it seems the article has been hijacked by a bunch of acupuncture fans.

Editors do not have consensus to keep the coat rack material. See the comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/German Acupuncture Trials AFD. Editors noted there are problems with the article, including the problems with the WP:COATHOOK text. Therefore there is WP:LOCALCON to cleanup the article. An editor did acknowledge at the German acupuncture trials talk page that We found consensus to limit the information about the results. But the same editor restored the outdated information about the results of the trials along with the low level details that do not benefit the reader. There was consensus to limit the information about the results, but the same editor continued to restore the disputed unimportant details that are also not WP:MEDRS compliant. Recommending revert to this version. Make sure you bring food and treats because it is a 4 hour journey to the article. QuackGuru (talk) 06:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I WP:BOLDly reverted the page to the 20:18, 12 December 2013 version (last stable version before before the recent machine-gun editing). This rolls back both of your recent edits. The two of you need to reach a consensus on the talk page or at WP:DR instead of this constant churning back-and-forth editing of the article. If anyone has a problem with this, I can put in a request for page protection to force everyone to stop editing the article until an agreement is reached. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You added a primary source to the lead and original research to the lead. You also added low level details about the trial itself to the lead using an outdated reference. See WP:PRIMARY. The details about the trial itself is a violation of WP:COATHOOK. For medical claims about acupuncture, readers can go to the acupuncture article. What is the specific objection for this version based on policy? QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The FJC is both secondary and a MEDRS, just as the NIH or FDA (which play a similar role) are. Just saying; we can do this at the talk page. --Middle 8 (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I added nothing. What I did was remove all the changes that you and Mallexikon made since 20:18, 12 December 2013. Yes, we all understand that you don't like that version. That's why you made 24 edits in the next 7 days. We also all understand that Mallexikon made 18 edits in the same period, that a large percentage of your edits were undoing Mallexikon's edits, and that a large percentage of Mallexikon's edits were undoing your edits. Please don't bother arguing the merits of your preferred version. I don't care who is right. All I care about is that fact that neither of you are gong about this the right way. WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DR tell you what you need to do instead of what you are doing now. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

But you did add something to the lead against policy and you obviously "don't care who is right". This version is closer to WP:NPOV IMO. QuackGuru (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

What part of

Please don't bother arguing the merits of your preferred version.

and

All I care about is that fact that neither of you are gong about this the right way. WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DR tell you what you need to do instead of what you are doing now.

are you having trouble understanding?

You can follow Misplaced Pages policies voluntarily, or we can force you to follow Misplaced Pages policies through page protection or through blocks, but you will follow Misplaced Pages policies (WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DR). Are we going to do this the easy way or the hard way? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

In case anyone thinks that I am being too harsh: --Guy Macon (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

"Do you feel lucky?" --Roxy the dog (resonate) 21:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Guy, QG is right. The article has been hijacked by acupuncturists who refuse to declare their conflict of interest in promoting their peculiar version of quackery. It's an embarrassment. That you are criticizing him is also something of an embarrassment considering he is one of the only people actually working to keep the article somewhat neutral. jps (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) So it's OK to not follow WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DR if you are right? The end justifies the means? Are you sure you want to defend that position? Remember, the acupuncturists also believe they are right and will take full advantage of your implied "I am right so the rules don't apply to me" policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Have you tried to follow DR? The procedures simply don't work. As for WP:CONSENSUS, there is no evidence that QG isn't following that. He brings it up explicitly. The answer here is to support the best scholarship and actually look at content. The perception of good/bad behavior should not dictate content. jps (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

What's sad, jps, is this (my comment at bottom, with the bolded remark about sham vs. verum). Follow your own advice and you'll see this isn't what you think it is. --Middle 8 (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You're saying WP:DR doesn't work, and at the same time, focusing on the editor and not what the editor writes. What can I say? WP:DR can work, somewhat, but you have to try. AGF some. I agree WP:DR is flawed because the whole idea of consensus among non-experts is flawed. But your approach isn't helping matters. At least not in topic areas where there's nuance; I guess maybe shooting from the hip with a shotgun is reasonable enough with perpetual motion interdimensional ESP machine conspiracies... --Middle 8 (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the way I think we should proceed. Take any issues about editor behaviour elsewhere. Let's concentrate on what should and shouldn't be in the article. Anything that sounds remotely like a claim about the efficacy of acupuncture must meet WP:MEDRS or be compatible with what's said in sources compliant with MEDRS. However, the article isn't about the efficacy of acupuncture but about its topic: a series of experiments. Good sources for an article about a process of scientific research are normal science news outlets. They don't have to be peer-reviewed. Sources of the type of New Scientist, Times Higher Education Supplement, Nature (news sections), BBC. That's assuming that the topic is notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

There is an additional problem with the rather contentious AfD that made things worse. Since Mark said that merging may be appropriate, perhaps we should merge? jps (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Just because I am not a big fan of trying to make the article comply with WP:MEDRS by throwing bombs and setting things on fire, that doesn't imply that I don't think that the article needs to comply with WP:MEDRS. Following WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DR is the most effective way insure that the article complies with WP:MEDRS. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Show me an example where this actually worked when there were four different SPAs working to skew an article away from MEDRS. jps (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Translation: "I am right and I know that WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DR don't work, so clearly they don't apply to me and it is OK to edit war." Because edit warring works so well. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

No, edit warring doesn't work at all. The point is that DR doesn't work either. The only thing left is to ask for help from people who understand. That's what QG is doing here, I'd say. DR is empirically a waste of time. I'd be happy to be proven wrong about this, but I've simply never seen it work in any situation. jps (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You haven't been looking very hard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_83#Macedonians_.28ethnic_group.29

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_82#Wallis_Simpson

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_81#United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_80#Directed_energy_weapons.2C_and_the_Talk_page

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_80#Harvey_Milk_and_related_articles

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_80#Republic_of_Kosovo

...and those are just the ones from the last 3 months at one DR venue.

As In promised, I requested and was granted page protection for a week because you and others -- on both sides of the content dispute -- think that WP:TALKDONTREVERT doesn't apply to you. If the behavior continues after the protection expires I will request a series of escalating blocks for all editors who are unwilling to follow Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I mean, you might pat yourself on the back for those dispute resolutions, but the fact of the matter is that what ultimately happened in each of those cases was either a punt, a discussion that could have happened anywhere, or a closing resolution that simply took sides in an edit war. So I don't see that you've actually shown that dispute resolutions work any better than, say, getting someone to help from this noticeboard. What does it matter if QG makes his request here or there? Why shouldn't I take his side (or anyone else's)? jps (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice demonstration of the No true Scotsman fallacy. Yes, it is true that DR doesn't work if you don't count the times that it does. As I mentioned, DRN is just one venue; WP:DR lists several. Perhaps you can explain to me why these examples don't count:

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity

And I haven't even mentioned the hundreds of RfCs that have successfully resolved disputes.

You know, even if you are convinced that DR never works, by encouraging QuackGuru to misbehave by telling him that it is OK to break the rules, you are setting him up to be blocked.

As for your question "Why shouldn't I take his side?", the problem is not you taking his side. As for the actual content dispute, QuackGuru is on the right side; we really should have an article based upon sound science, not a coatrack for pushing fringe science. If QuackGuru had shown any willingness at all to follow Misplaced Pages's community behavioral standards, I would have been the first to attempt to assist him. Alas, he has not shown any willingness at all to follow Misplaced Pages's community behavioral standards, and it appears that you think that's OK as long as he is right. The end does not justify the means. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

So you are now referencing a number of arbitrations in which I was involved. They were all wastes of time in the sense that they do not result in meaningful progress in sorting out the disputes. What results in meaningful progress is one of two things: 1) when certain users are excluded from editing, and 2) when enough other users come to help. You seem to be under the impression that "misbehavior" is somehow the major issue. I'm not at all convinced that 1) you've actually identified consistently bad misbehavior on the part of QG in this dispute and 2) you've actually demonstrated that there is something to your approach of attacking those whom you think are misbehaving. You actually went ahead and reverted my editorial choice on that page on the basis of your dislike of QG's behavior. That is, not only do you think the ends don't justify the means, you think that we should WP:PUNISH those who you think are not upholding some arbitrary standard. I have no problem if you want to continue with normal dispute resolution processes, but I have seen the really problematic sides of these processes and they are disgusting. To argue that people spend their time trying to convince arbitrary carrot and stick holders to take their sides in a dispute (which is ultimately what all of DR comes down to) when there is such an incompetent admin corps, when we have a system that does not distinguish between good and bad content, when we have a general culture that not only doesn't defer to expertise but actively despises it, you better believe I'm not a fan of DR and will not be. The way Misplaced Pages functions best is through when good editors help each other. I speak from experience here, and I do not think your threats about getting people blocked are at all helpful. It's just more wikipolitics as dysfunctionally usual. jps (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your editorial choice because your editorial choice was to engage in tag-team edit warring, and tag-team edit warring violates Misplaced Pages's behavioral guidelines. It had nothing to do with anyone's behavior but yours. Clearly I am not going to convince you to change your behavior; Comparing this, and this pretty much says it all. I am invoking WP:IAD and withdrawing from this conversation. Feel free to have the last word; I don't plan on reading any response you might post. I wish you the best of luck in the emotional and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Geez, Guy, don't be a dick, or sumthing.... You think that just because you've never been blocked that makes you a better Wikipedian? I guess every block, every ban, every enforcement of Misplaced Pages's arbitrary power structure is right and good and holy. You are indicative of what makes this place so problematic. It really should be about the content: not the behavior, not the community, and not the arbitrary bureaucracy made up by pseudonymous random internet users. As long as people like you feel justified in treating people like QG and myself poorly, I'm not confident that things can get better. You say, "Please don't bother arguing the merits of your preferred version." That's exactly the opposite of the attitude I like to see people in charge of an encyclopedia take. jps (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Read this comment. Another editor is falsely claiming I am in favor of restoring the coathook information. This kind of deception must stop. QuackGuru (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please read it, because it's a question to QG, who is falsely portraying it as a lie. Read my reply at the talk page; I'm not advocating what some here assume. --Middle 8 (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You already know I am not in favor of restoring that text. The diffs you provided showed me deleting the text I did not support. What lead you to believe I am in favor of restoring it when I deleted it. QuackGuru (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

What I did was ask you a question: "so you're in favor of restoring X and Y?" Did you just not see the question mark? If you didn't understand why I'd ask such a question, again: Read my reply at the talk page, or ask there for clarification. Don't ABF and show your displeasure by accusing me of misconduct on FTN. --Middle 8 (talk) 07:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

If you really want to do the AGF thing, please strike your accusation that I lied. I've acknowledged that perhaps you simply overlooked my question mark and misread the question as a statement. --Middle 8 (talk)

You initially wrote: So you're saying you're in favor of restoring/including this and ?

Most editors know I am not in favor of restoring the coathook text. I thought I made it clear I'm not in favor of restoring the text I deleted.

On another talk page you wrote something that I do not understand. Maybe you can explain a bit more about it at the talk page for me to understand. QuackGuru (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for striking your comment. On your question, that's better discussed at said talk page, but what you say above happens to be an excellent example: it's very frustrating when you repeat yourself (i.e. "editors know I am not in favor of restoring...") so often. It's as if you didn't hear me when I said -- and will say now FOR THE THIRD TIME -- Read my reply at Talk:GERAC. Don't you get how this is frustrating and disruptive? It's classic and over-the-top WP:IDHT. It's also IDHT when you assert there's consensus when there plainly isn't. Please take my and others' comments (e.g. at the very end here, and Guy Macon's below) to heart. --Middle 8 (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Reiterate that there is WP:CON

• An editor did acknowledge at the German acupuncture trials talk page that there is consensus to limit the results of the trials: "We found consensus to limit the information about the results; however, QG opposes this consensus as well.".

• The same editor said: "I personally think the great thing about WP in contrast to other encyclopaedias is that we can include more material... However, I so understand your and Bluerasberry's concerns, and I see that there is consensus forming to not include this material. So if you'd rather delete it, that's also fine with me."

I am not opposed to limiting the information about the individual trials. The same editor who admitted there is consensus to limit the results of the trials also admitted there is consensus to delete the technical details about the set-up of the trials. This is the same editor who continues to restore the information against consensus. I am in favor of the current version without the coathook information. QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

If you and Mallexikon are both OK with the version suggested by Blue Rasberry, I suggest that you both step back and allow Blue Rasberry to edit the article. See Misplaced Pages:Edit requests#Making requests for the proper procedure. Given the recent history of edit warring leading to the page being protected, it would be a good idea to ask all of the major participants to endorse the edit request. That makes it easy for the admin to evaluate. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Bluerasberry wanted a summary rather than keeping the technical details of the set-up. I did make a change to the article. See: The trials were conducted using sham acupuncture. Other editors have not commented on my specific change, however. QuackGuru (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I would consider reverting your change and shouting at you in the edit summary to be making a rather strong comment. Clearly that editor did not agree that there was a consensus for your change, and the very first thing you wrote when you opened up this noticeboard report ("it seems the article has been hijacked by a bunch of acupuncture fans") tells me that you don't believe that there is a consensus among the editors of the page supporting your preferred version either. Nor is it valid to point to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/German Acupuncture Trials and claim that AfD demonstrates a community consensus on a wider scale as described at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. First, the result was "No Consensus", and second, the question asked was whether the article should be deleted, not whether there is a consensus for your preferred version. You need to do more than saying "there is WP:CON" or "editing against WP:LOCALCON" over and over. You have to supply some sort of evidence that the claim is true. I suspect that your claim is true, but I have seen no actual proof of consensus, and if I were an acupuncture advocate (which I am not; you can look at my history of participation on this board and see that I have consistently supported mainstream science and mainstream medical opinion, not fringe science or alternative medicine) I would want proof.

WP:CON and WP:DR lay out the steps you have to take to show that there is a consensus for your preferred version. First, you try on the article talk page (NOT through repeated reverts) to find a version everyone can live with. This does not involve you claiming that they agree; they have to say it. If you cannot reach agreement and you believe that the larger community will support your preferred version (not unlikely, BTW; acupuncture articles attract acupuncture fans and acupuncture opponents, whereas the larger community is likely to have a more neutral POV), then post an RfC. Once you get those magic words where an uninvolved closing admin rules on what the consensus is, everybody need to accept it or be blocked for refusing to follow consensus. Misplaced Pages's DR system really does work if you give it a chance. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Editors at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/German Acupuncture Trials noticed there were serious problems with the article, including the coatrack text. Those comments at the AFD should not be ignored. User:Jmh649 and other editors were against the coatrack text. QuackGuru (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no local consensus. Just a handful of editors -- me, Mallexikon, QuackGuru, Alexbrn (off and on), Bluerasberry and MrBill3 (off and on) -- trying to work it out. What's really ironic, and sad, is that a lot of editors are misreading this article and focusing on who's commenting at the expense of what's being said. I'm advocating that we educate readers that this was the first well-designed experiment showing that sham acu to be the same as verum, so I'd like some experimental details to be included, so science-literate readers can satisfy themselves that it was well-designed. See my comments . This isn't an alt-med coatrack; it's an interesting experiment documenting the evolution of scientific opinion about acupuncture, and not in the direction acupuncture proponents would like. There's no need for this discussion to have forked here, although we could use more eyes, attentive ones preferably. --Middle 8 (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I took a short break over the holidays... I'm a little surprised to find the whole thing boiling over just now... I thought we were making some headway with the help of Blue Rasberry ...? Probably it just needs some patience on the side of everybody involved. Thanks, Guy Macon for steadfastly defending WP:DR. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

What headway are you talking about? You disagreed with User:Bluerasberry but said there is a consensus forming to not include this material. You also said that "We found consensus to limit the information about the results..." QuackGuru (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, you have proven yourself to be spectacularly bad at determining what the consensus is and is not. Again, I suggest an RfC so that there is no doubt. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

T'ai chi – neutrality & sourcing

Has a "Health benefits" section, which says: "Now that the majority of health studies have displayed a tangible benefit in some areas to the practice of t'ai chi ch'uan, health professionals have called for more in-depth studies". Our article says T'ai chi has beneficial health effects for various conditions including diabetes, stroke, Alzheimer's disease and ADHD.

The article also includes an enormous "lineage" chart which doesn't seem well-sourced. Alexbrn 05:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

(Update) I have boldly replaced the entire "Health benefits" section with something sourced to an up-to-date review of reviews. Alexbrn 05:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

(Further !update) I've reverted your bold deletion. Other people seem to find better sourcing than you did for the medical benefits. The lineage chart could be complained about as being OR or SYN, but it's actually neither, a compilation of many such published charts. Most such charts only deal with the author's teachers, their teachers, ... this chart collects many such into one chart, showing links that were unacknowledged in the individual lineage charts. htom (talk) 06:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

There was certainly no "better sourcing ... for the medical benefits": there was however out-of-date, primary, and self-published content. We need to follow the guidance at WP:MEDRS which tells us to use the best sources for medical content so that Misplaced Pages does not include false health information. Your revert removed a solid, very strongly-sourced statement and re-instated a bunch of dubious material.

(Add) Hmmm, have we got some kind of walled garden here? These charts feature in the sub-articles too like Wu (Hao)-style t'ai chi ch'uan this one, which is almost entirely unreferenced. Alexbrn 06:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I built the lineage tree & I would like to ask you on what basis you deem it poorly sourced. I referred to the information present on Misplaced Pages, previous taijiquan lineage charts that were already present on Misplaced Pages, requested input from other Wikipedians, corresponded with shifus Eddie Wu, Chen Bing, Chen Xiaowang, referred to the lineage tree on the Yang family's website, among others, etc. Also, I've been looking into what code I can use here on wiki to allow me to scale down the tree and have only recently made ground in that regard, which I'm now experimenting with.

As for the edit on the health section. The section has been there so long, undisputed, that I feel that simply deleting it prior to proper discussion is damaging to the article & acting without proper etiquette and should be reverted until discussion has taken it's due course & consensus is reached. It has already started the beginnings of a edit war, which is upsetting to us editors that have put much time & effort trying to raise the quality of this important martial arts article. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Arriving at "a" tai chi lineage entails a certain amount of interpretation and synthesis (as was raised in Talk at the time). Are you saying you are the researcher who has formulated the chart? Isn't this a case of original research?

However, for the purposes of this noticeboard the chart is not the major issue. The main worry is (was) the fringey claims made about health. I don't think any editor can approve of content such as "a pilot study, which has not been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, has found preliminary evidence that t'ai chi ch'uan and related qigong may reduce the severity of diabetes", among other claims about serious health conditions drawn from primary sources: this is effectively original research which is forbidden by our policies. I think the only mitigating excuse any editor might have for including it is not knowing of our medical sourcing guidelines (which I linked-to in my edit summary). Luckily we have a comprehensive "review of reviews" which is a perfect source for us, enabling to state the current state of research on the topic of tai chi and health, with great reliability. Alexbrn 14:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The chart was built only using available information & does not include any choices among conflicting accounts, unless they were already present in the original chart (which this new one is primarily derived from). It may not be comprehensive, however, it is not attempting to choose a particular take on the lineage & is always up for discussion & edit.

I don't have issue with your health argument, per se, but the manner you are going about acting out your opposition. It is simply not right to delete so much without proper discussion first. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 14:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

What more is there to discuss? If you want to work on the chart, start a sandbox page until the submission comes to the point where it isn't obviously WP:OR and, at the very least incomplete if not entirely misleading. As it stood, the addition made medical claims that were not backed up by evidence, is all. jps (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I didn't touch the chart (not having looked at any sources), and merely attended to the medical claims. It's just I couldn't see any source for the chart mentioned, and noted some talk on the Talk page which seemed to imply constructing such a chart was a piece of original research, since in the tai chi world (of which I know nothing) the claims of people to be pupils of masters, or their status as merely a "pretender", is much disputed. But as I said, that is thankfully not really a topic for WP:FT/N ! Alexbrn 14:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with being WP:BOLD. User Alexbrn saw that the previous state of the health section gave undue credence to medical views of Taiji which are not currently mainstream. such is clearly described in the guidelines relating to medical research. A user does not have an obligation to discuss the change first, but in cases where it is very likely to be reverted (use your crystal ball to guess, I suppose) then it may be the most effective course of action. Most good faith efforts to improve the content of the article do not need prior approval or discuss to proceed. it is vital to the well-functioning of WP that this be the case. WP:BRD explains a lot of this idea pretty clearly. I for one believe that using the review of reviews is a better solution than the previous health section with its risky claims. - Metal lunchbox 16:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with reverting WP:BOLDness; either, it's the next step in the WP:BRD cycle. Re-reverting and then running to Fringe theories noticeboard is NOT the subsequent step, it is canvasing for support rather than discussing the change. See, for example, WP:REVEXP Take this discussion to Talk:T'ai chi ch'uan where it belongs. I see you've reverted my revert and now managed to mention that revert on the talk page, but sent the discussion here, where it does not (yet) belong. This (moving the discussion to another place which appears to be canvasing) makes it difficult for me to AGF, especially since I see you making more deletions of health references in the article. I will not be making any more changes to taijiquan (although I'll further discuss changes on that talkpage, not here), if you want an edit war, find someone else to play with. htom (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not talking about reverting boldness, yes its part of BRD which I cite in my statement. I'm responding to "It is simply not right to delete so much without proper discussion first". I'm saying that it is actually quite proper. - Metal lunchbox 13:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Your timeline is wrong: I posted here before making any edits to the article, and did not "move" any discussion. Posting to a Noticeboard is not canavssing. On finding a strong MEDRS-compliant source on this topic the solution was clear so I went ahead and used it, and I reverted your deletion of it as a an example of a very bad content edit backed by a non-reason ("Too much removed without discussion" - see WP:DRNC). I'm not seeing anybody disagreeing with the substance of the content change (which was obviously needed IMO). Alexbrn 17:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Pushback

So anyway, A1candidate has reverted the article to its old claims of "benefits" based on primary sources, self-published material and old research, while removing the 2011 review of systematic reviews on the topic. It almost seems as if making a point is more important than creating an encyclopedia with high-quality content ... Alexbrn 17:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Canvasing before reverting, that's an invention. Not sure it's worth keeping, as it seems to demonstrate both bad faith on the part of the user and their expectation of bad faith on the part of the other editors. I thought that Misplaced Pages was supposed to be reliable, not aspiring to truth or scientific proof. htom (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Huh? Posting to a Noticeboard is not canvassing. The topic is of interest to this Noticeboard (another option would be WT:MED in this instance) and it is apparent the editors of the article itself have lacked the ability to correct basic faults in medical content. "Bad faith" doesn't come into it. Alexbrn 18:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Having waited for seventeen minutes for a reply to your pronouncement of the discovery of a possible fringe theory on the fringe theory notice board -- without mentioning that discovery on the article's talk page -- you went ahead and boldly deleted a section and replaced it with a stub you found acceptable. Strange that you'd think to come here before being bold, it's like you knew the edit would be controversial. Then you came here to announce your boldness. Whatever the merits or lack thereof in the changes you've made, the way in which you've made them leaves something to be desired. ... it is apparent the editors of the article itself have lacked the ability to correct basic faults in medical content. "Bad faith" doesn't come into it. I'd put it that bad faith was obviously much of it. If you had asked there first ... unlike you, we can never know what those editors might have done if you'd asked there. htom (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with htom's points. I don't see how mass deletion without working with the editors concerned is "creating an encyclopedia with high-quality content". It seems antagonistic and demotivating. The fact that an apparent issue wasn't fixed, is not as much a sign of failure to fix it by editors, as it is of there being no attention brought to the matter prior. I too believe this matter should be discussed on the talk page & will do so there if I have further input. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Guys, this simply isn't how Misplaced Pages works. An improvement is an improvement no matter whether it is preceding by chat. This is not a controversial change; there was some obviously crappy health content, it was replaced with something modern and reliable in accord with our guidelines, and the article improved as a result: less misleading, more succinct, better sourced. A more appropriate response would be "Gee yes, looking at WP:MEDRS that was terrible, thanks for the fix!". It may simply be the case that editors had not yet got to the most recent research as embodied by the paper I added ... when research changes, articles change to follow – there is nothing unusual about that.

Also there should be no separate group of (what you call) "the editors concerned" who gatekeep the article and with whom changes have to be negotiated. We are all editors or potential editors of the article. I mentioned a "walled garden" above as it does however seem to me that within the tai chi cluster of articles there is rather a lot of original research (those charts), and vast expanses of uncited text or articles which are entirely uncited (e.g. Chen Changxing, Wu (Hao)-style t'ai chi ch'uan), so "the editors concerned" have plenty of work to do ... Alexbrn 07:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Lee and Ernst is the perfect source for this section. I think it could, however, be better summarised, to reflect the actual conclusion, with an emphasis on the positive benefits. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

This article clearly has an ownership problem. I made two simple wording changes in the lede, which would make the language more grammatical and readable and was told by two seperate editors that I needed to discuss changes before making them. Wherever this assumption came from, I'm here to let you know that it's fundamentally not compatible with the way wikipedia works. If you want to have control over the article then start your own wiki, it's easy. You are free to revert my edits. I hope you have some decent reasons, but you are free to revert my edits for really dumb reasons, too, but please don't tell me or anyone else that edits must be discussed first to be valid. - Metal lunchbox 15:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Fringe material being added to Americas

See and other edits by DavidSzilagyi (talk · contribs). He's positive King Hiram came to America and insists that Americas states this as fact (we have Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact for this fringe nonsense). He's edit warring right now. Ingá Stone needs work also. Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Slavic Vedism

This article is a mess and is up for AfD. Of particular concern is to us the section about Hindu idols supposedly found in Russia. Mangoe (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Sleep-learning

I added the category "pseudoscience" to Sleep-learning, we have the article Sleep and learning for any scientific information on any correlated activity between the two brain functions. Does anyone disagree? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

A merge wouldn't be out of place. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The science one is about getting enough sleep to cement what you learned the previous day and having enough sleep to be alert to learn the following day. The pseudoscience is about learning new facts while you are asleep. If we keep them apart the "pseudo" tag will be correct. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that pseudoscience. I would call it dubious science, but there are people working on it who are using the scientific method in a correct way. It isn't as if learning during sleep would be a miracle or anything -- there is plenty of organized brain activity during sleep. Looie496 (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution