Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:57, 2 June 2014

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Citizendium Porting (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Citizendium Porting, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Citizendium PortingWikipedia:WikiProject Citizendium PortingTemplate:WikiProject Citizendium PortingCitizendium Porting

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

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

User QuackGuru's recent violation of WP:Three revert rule

Greetings! It seems that the user QuackGuru just violated the WP:3RR in the alternative medicine articles. He has been warned already before about this by administrator EdJohnston, as well as administrator Tiptoety:

Hi QuackGuru. Please consider this your only warning for edit warring on Traditional Chinese medicine. While it is obvious that you have intentionally not gone over three reverts in one day, please be reminded that the edit warring policy does not specify a specific number of reverts, and simply engaging in a long term pattern of edit warring can result in a block. I'll also note that if you continue to edit war on Pseudoscience related articles, I will impose a 1RR restriction your account per the discretionary sanctions authorized at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Tiptoety talk 16:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

As Tiptoety's warning makes it really clear, there is not any "specific amount of edits that you can do each day". It does not even matter whether you continue that disruptive behaviour on just one or even more articles. QuackGuru has been specifically warned about edit warring Pseudoscience related articles. As far as I have been involved in developing some other alternative medicine articles, such as traditional Chinese medicine or acupuncture, I have noticed the same editing behaviour by QuackGuru even there.

Yesterday, QuackGuru was already warned two times:

• at 07:13, 14 May,
• and at 17:38, 14 May.

However, it seems that the same editing pattern keeps repeating with QuackGuru:

• at 21:02, 9 May 2014 on this very article, Chiropractic, QuackGuru made a revert on {{POV}} tag.
• At 19:18, 14 May 2014, he made his second revert on this very same article, on that very same thing.

As stated by WP:3RR: ".... The three-revert rule ... is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so..."

However, today QuackGuru also made his 3rd revert, so even the bright line of three reverts applies.

1. Here you can see him inserting the {{MEDRS}} tags:
2. Here you can see the tags being removed by another user, DVMt:
3. Finally here, QuackGuru crosses the line and reverts the last edit by DVMt:

WP:3RR is extremly clear on this:

The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period.

So gentlemen, what shall we do with QuackGuru? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Making consecutive edits by tagging the same source is not a revert. I did not make 3 reverts and you are refusing to collaborate. See WP:BOOMARANG. QuackGuru (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I've tried for 2 weeks to try to discuss the salient issues with QuackGuru and he simply ignores my points while removing sources he doesn't like and preventing inclusion of sources that supports the claims being made (such as 10.3% of patients who present to DCs for non-MSK issues). Support a report to the admins for edit warring and conduct detrimental to wikipedia's mission. DVMt (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I originally added the source myself and tagged the source and self-reverted my own original edit and both of you and not collaborating here. It would help to focus on article content using reliable sources rather than your personal favorites. QuackGuru (talk) 05:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Removal of the MEDRS tags and failure to collaborate

I tagged the primary source (PMID 24512507) in the article and fixed a wikilink but it was reverted without a valid reason and I was falsely accused of a 3RR violation. QuackGuru (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see the thread above. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. QG poisons the well here and he is a constant at disruptive and unprofessional behaviours. He's also admitted he's a meat puppet for Ernst which is as clear as a policy as we can get. He's tried to censor my sandbox as well. Just goes to show he will do anything to censor material that he does not agree with. My sandbox consists of over 50 new sources most of them reviews but it displays the focus on MSK and science behind joint dysfunction and spinal manipulation. DVMt (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@DVMt: that is a lie. (See WP:SPADE; I'm not saying you are generally a liear, just that the statement is false, and that you have no evidence that it was true.) QG never said he "was a meatpuppet for Ernst". I also question whether the reference would meet {{MEDRS}}, as it is a self-proclaimed alt-med publication. However, it doesn't seem to me it needs to meet {{MEDRS}}; in context, whether or not this is a medical article overall, that paragraph is not about medicine or alternative medicine. More important, though, the stated reasons both for tagging and for untagging the reference are completely wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The source is still a primary source. I previously explained we require secondary sources but DVMt thinks any source is fair game for non-medical claims. QuackGuru (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry @Arthur Rubin:, I disagree completely with your assertion. BMC is a completely reliable source. I know your expertise is in math, but do you have clinical competency in MSK medicine? The reference is legit, and I referred to an independent medical editor. Re: meat puppetry, if it walks like a meat puppet, and talks like a meat puppet... DVMt (talk) 01:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Tag restored against CON again

See diff. QuackGuru (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus. Consensus has changed and you have addressed none of my concerns as above. NPOV tag stays and that is seconded by a current editor, Jayguru as well. Regards, DVMt (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Most editors are against having the NPOV tag. You got no CON. I tried explaining to you secondary sources are preferred. QuackGuru (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the current discussion, I don't see any consensus whatsoever. The opposite actually. You don't need to explain secondary sources because I understand them full well. Why are you trying to censor a paper that clearly identifies the 81% of DCs who practice NMSK? How about we go to an independent noticeboard and get a broad consensus? DVMt (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It is simple. Use secondary sources. Problems solved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I wish it were that simple, James. The reliable source isn't being used to make a medical claim, it's been used to identify factions within the profession. Are you stating this source cannot be used under any circumstance? Yes/No. DVMt (talk) 01:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I originally made the mistake of adding the primary source to the article. I self-reverted my own mistake and clearly explained in my edit summary it was a primary source. QuackGuru (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

By this logic, every single primary source in the article needs to be deleted. Do you agree? DVMt (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with WP:CON for the current sources. QuackGuru (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no con. The current sources includes numerous primary sources. We can't cherry pick to remove sources that we don't agree with. DVMt (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

CON does not have to be unanimous. QuackGuru (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

If you find a good source and I can add it to the article ASAP. QuackGuru (talk) 02:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, captain obvious. You've done nothing to try to build any consensus. Time for ArbCom take a look here. You refuse to to acknowledge the massive problems here, refuse to accept there is evidence-based chiropractic, refuse to accept that 4/5 DCs practice primarily MSK, refuse to accept that only 10% of DCs treat non MSK cases, refuse to compromise, or build consensus through collaboration but rather impose your rigid interpretations and lobby accusations against editors who disagree with you. This behaviour isn't specific to chiropractic either. All alt-med articles. Didn't your bans teach you anything? DVMt (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

That was an WP:IDHT violation. The answer is simple and you were told about using reliable sources before. Do you understand now? QuackGuru (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it seems to me that there is a strong consensus here that the tag should stay. You violated WP:3RR QuackGuru. It's all in the diffs above. The source discussed here, as long as it's no making any claims on medical efficacy, IMO a primary source can be used. Therefore, there should be no problem with that. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

If you think that QuackGuru violated WP:3RR, go file a report at WP:AN3, if not, drop it. Your continual attempts to poison the well and use bullying tactics to change the article is starting to be annoying. When you have a minute, you should also review the policies on primary and secondary sources because you don't seem to understand them.--McSly (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps if McSly was editing here and not doing a random drive by, he/she would understand that QG has been disruptive and tendentious in this whole process. DVMt (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, you are wrong. I would explain it to you but 1) this section is already way outside the WP:TALK parameters and 2) I feel it would be a complete waste of my time so I won't bother.--McSly (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Fringe pushers with obvious COI do not a consensus make. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls DVMt (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the tag. You can't continue to restore the tag when others object. QuackGuru (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Who object? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I already provided diffs on your talk page who objected. User:Bobrayner, User:Jmh649,, User:Arthur Rubin, and QuackGuru objected to the tag. QuackGuru (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest a RfC next time. Also, it'd be nice if QuackGuru would accept us to collaborate rather than be at odds all the time. Do you? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Removal of chiropractic from pseudoscience category

This is the preferred categorization https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Alternative_theoretical_formulations. The time has come. Chiropractic management is primarily for MSK disorders and back and neck pain specifically. The fringe faction or specific traits of those practitioners are clearly delineated now, and there is no doubt that chiropractic care for MSK is not fringe. DVMt (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Really? because it looks to me that the crazy is alive and well in the chiropractic world.--McSly (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This would be considered fringe. You seem to be conflating what constitutes 'mainstream chiropractic practice' (MSK) and fringe chiropractic practice (non-MSK). Regards, DVMt (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The questionable source in the article supports "minority", not "fringe". 15% is a bit large for "fringe". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

If someone were to write a separate article on MSK chiropractic, that might not be pseudoscience. Any article including the history should note that it was pseudoscience when it started, putting it convincingly into the category. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Chiropractic is full blooded Pseudoscience. No question about it, and fringe pushers cannot change that. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting proposal, Arthur. MSK chiropractic is essentially evidence-based chiropractic since that's where the majority of the research lies. Unorthodox, or fringe constitutes 19%. Dissidents is another word. What I do know is we can't label the whole profession 'pseudoscientific'. What about my proposal about alternative theoretical formulations? Roxy, spoken like a true extremist. DVMt (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Vertebral subluxations (or nonallopathic lesions; you can't eliminate non-science just by renaming the terms) are still pseudoscience, although some orthopedic subluxations do exist. I wouldn't go as far as Roxy, but there are enough "mainstream" (as generally observed) chiropractors who use the "subluxation" lingo that the field still fits into pseudoscience. If the governing boards and most schools completely rejected "subluxations", I might agree it might no longer be pseudoscience, although it's still not entirely evidence-based. Mainstream medicine isn't entirely evidence-based, so I wouldn't reject chiropractic solely on that basis. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This is the elephant in the room. Mainstream chiropractic views subluxation as a synonym for joint dysfunction or a mechanical problem with the spine segments. Fringe chiropractic views it as interference with the life force and is a cause for disease. The current subluxation article doesn't reflect both views. Regardless of who provides the manipulation, be it a DC, DO, PT they are all attempting to restore mobility and reduce pain at a specific part of the spine, hence the term 'manipulable lesion' or IOW that site that you're applying the manipulation. The difference between a chiropractic subluxation (aka joint dysfunction) is that there is no structural damage to the corresponding joints and soft and connective tissues. It's a functional problem. Orthopedic subluxations are literally unstable joints that are hyper mobile with structural damage and an absolute contraindication to manipulative techniques. I should point out that the ICD-10 recognizes the subluxation complex as a diagnosis under the musculoskeletal section under biomechanical lesions . This, again, reinforces the MSK aspect that is considered 'mainstream' unless we don't consider the ICD-10 and the WHO credible sources. DVMt (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs), do you have anything to add? DVMt (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

If it could be established by mainstream (and I mean generally recognized as mainstream, without assuming that Chiropractic is mainstream) medical reliable sources that spinal joint disfunction, not amounting to orthopedic subluxations, can cause damage to the body, and (even from Chiropractic sources), that "straight" chiropractic are no longer accepted by the profession, then there would be some justification for removing the pseudoscience characterization. You have provided plausible evidence for the first, but there's still none for the second. At best you have provided evidence that "straight" chiropractic forms a small minority, but that doesn't show they aren't accepted within the profession. A profession which accepts pseudoscientists is still pseudoscientific, even if their numbers are few. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs), take a peek in my sandbox to see spinal joint dysfunction research --biomechanics, theory, etc. As a scientist you know well that there is continuum in science --pseudoscience -> junk science ->fringe science, etc. It's not really fair to 4/5 practitioners that practice "mainstream" (defined as primarily spinal/MSK based) to be labelled pseudoscientific bc of a rogue faction that has no support within or outside the profession. Hence, the proposal for alternative theoretical formulations. Or, even having two categories, but so long as we clearly delineate what specific aspects of clinical practice are considered fringe. I'm open to suggestions. DVMt (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The text is sourced

The tag is bogus. See Chiropractic#Controversy.

""Straights" tend to rely exclusively on spinal adjustments, to emphasize innate intelligence, and to subscribe to the notion that subluxation "is the leading cause of disease in the world today."42 The text in the body is also sourced. For example: "“Innate intelligence” evolved as a theological concept, the representative of Universal Intelligence (=God) within each person.36 D.D. Palmer was convinced he had discovered a natural law that pertained to human health in the most general terms. Originally, manipulation was not a technique for treating spinal or musculoskeletal problems, it was a cure for all human illness: “95% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae, the remainder by luxations of other joints.”37"

Palmer DD (1910). The Chiropractor's Adjuster: Text-book of the Science, Art and Philosophy of Chiropractic for Students and Practitioners. Portland, OR: Portland Printing House Co. OCLC 17205743. A subluxated vertebra ... is the cause of 95 percent of all diseases ... The other five percent is caused by displaced joints other than those of the vertebral column.

This is a commonly known fact and there are many sources that can verify the same text. QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

According to Daniel D. Palmer, the founder of chiropractic, subluxation is the sole cause of disease and manipulation is the cure for all diseases of the human race.

The source does not state this. This is a misrepresentation of the research. What else did you take liberties with paraphrasing? This is very concerning indeed. DVMt (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

"The “straights” religiously adhere to D.D. Palmer's notions of the “innate intelligence” and view subluxation as the sole cause and manipulation as the sole cure of all human disease" Straight out of the first source under the 'Internal Conflict' section. 203.38.24.65 (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I forgot about that part. The text is sourced and it is accurate. I think the tag can be removed now. QuackGuru (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

To remain IMHO. Who are you mystery ip-man? I think {{pp-sock|small=yes}} might do the case. What do the other editors think? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The low level details about the date 1910 is unnecessary and is original research. QuackGuru (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

If we don't provide the date (1910) then there is no context. Considering that leaving at is suggests there's been no change in 104 years, that seems misleading. DVMt (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The article is also misleading in the sense that it suggest the profession has not changed/evolved from its origins, namely that subluxation is the cause of diseases which is given tremendous weight here. This tertiary source Bergmann, T.F., Perterson D.H (2011). Chiropractic Technique: Principles and Procedures. Elsevier. ISBN 9780323049696. clearly states that " This monocausal view of disease has been abandoned by the profession" and this 2012 systematic review states that "preferring a holistic view of subluxation that is viewed as theoretical construct in a "web of causation" along with other determinants of health. Henderson, C.N.R (October 2012). Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 22 (5): 632–642.. These sources changes everything because it refutes the myth that QuackGuru is trying to perpetuate in 2014: that the profession still thinks that subluxation is the sole cause of disease for the human race. The more I dig into the sources of the articles, the more I am seeing critical errors in QG's interpretation, which was also noted by other editors at the Electronic Cigarette.

Strange comment in the Practice Guidelines

A 2006 study suggested continuing education enhances the scientific knowledge of the practitioner.

Seems disembodied and irrelevant. The study itself is a nondescript workshop evaluation that somehow seems to be published in a journal. Shall we get rid of it? 203.38.24.65 (talk) 08:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is a primary source. QuackGuru (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Suspicious mystery ip-man suddenly popping up. A sock puppet? Anyway, it's relevant source. To remain IMHO. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I already explained it is a primary source. QuackGuru (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

User:203.38.24.65, I recommend you open an account so you can start editing this article. This article is semi-protected. QuackGuru (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You're on a very slippery slope if you're going to cherry pick which primary sources you're going to attempt to delete. Also, there is nothing in WP that states that primary sources can never be used under any circumstance. So, if we are trimming the tree, let's make other suggestions. "The practice remains at a crossroads between science and ideological dogma." It overlaps with other manual-therapy professions, including massage therapy, osteopathy, and physical therapy.." "While 84% of respondents considered nurses' ethics "very high" or "high," only 36% felt that way about chiropractors. Other healthcare professions ranged from 38% for psychiatrists, to 62% for dentists, 69% for medical doctors, 71% for veterinarians, and 73% for druggists or pharmacists. Similar results were found in the 2003 Gallup Poll."

Jayaguru, your accusations of sock-puppetry are unbecoming. I am not a sock-puppet, I edit other wikis considerably and wikipedia only occasionally; I have no desire to sign up for an account (no offense meant to anyone). Even if I was a sock puppet you could still attempt to address the argument rather than attack the man which, although my knowledge of WP policies is perfunctory at best, used to be a core tenet here.

Regarding the sentence in question, it doesn't bother me that it's a primary source, it's just that it is basically saying 'studying science makes people better at understanding science' - a blindingly obvious statement that is not relevant to the preceding paragraph. The referenced study is a simple training evaluation, one that might be conducted after any number of minor training courses delivered around the world. Nothing about that sentence is interesting or relevant which is why I thought it would be an easy one to remove. 203.38.24.65 (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Not accusing, asking. What other wikis you have been editing? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

All the usual suspects. Have you read my comments above - what are your thoughts? 203.38.24.65 (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources should not be used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Alternative medicine articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• B-Class Alternative views articles
• Mid-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages