User talk:Mccready/Archive 2

Instantnood

The point is rather broader than use of those specific terms -- on which I didn't criticise him, but which you seemed to suggest was a blanket defence of his actions. Isn't it clear from the example given that he's engaged in disruptive and counter-productive editing over the status of the SARs in the PRC, the spelling of Macau/Macao, and such like? Frankly I think the case has long been made, now we're simply haggling over the proverbial amount, but you're free to differ. Alai 05:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Alai, I confined my comments to areas I had checked. Certainly I'm in no position to, nor did I, give blanket defence of his actions. Which "the example" are you referring to? His edits re Spcial Administrative Regions (SARs) which I've checked were all correct. Until we confirm he is correct on this, I'm inclinced to think the issue remains unresolved. Mccready 06:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The list of bridges example, which we'd already both made specific reference to. (It includes both the SARs and Macao business, conveniently enough.) If we're "waiting to confirm he's correct" we'll be waiting a long time, I fear, and as pointed out on WP:AN, rather missing the point. Alai 06:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes but a start would be to produce a single diff on which his use of the terms is incorrect. My look at the issue indicates that some of his opponents have not understood the correct usage of the terms, despite his pleas and despite him providing the links by which they may do so. The reason we are waiting a long time appears to be that no one has made the effort. Mccready 07:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Why? You're the only one that's raised the use of those terms, and they strike me as a complete red herring. You've not addressed the edits in the cited article, either with reference to "correctness", or more to the point, "disruptiveness". Do you feel that spelling-based reverts to stub templates and factoring the SARs out of the PRC are both correct, and non-disruptive? (Or indeed, either.) Alai 07:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I confine my remarks to what I know (the use of the terms as above) not spelling issues or stubs. Yes his factoring out of SARs is correct on the occasions on which I've checked. Like I say. Please provide one diff which I may not have looked at and which you think shows his incorrect use of the terms.Mccready 07:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I was mentally conflating two examples: the reversion of stub template to a redirect was on Macao, China. Why are you asking for diffs, is there some lack of clarity about which edits are being referred to? His treatment of the SARs is not correct (and is disruptive to boot, given his persistence with a pattern of such edits). If you're going to "confine your remarks" as above, you may wish not to comment further on whether he's breached his probation. Alai 15:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Alai, you will need to provide a diff to support your claim. Pls provide one diff which shows his use of terms in the general aggregation of nation, state, country etc was incorrectly applied to any SAR. I am saying that every time I've looked, he's been correct. It's unhelpful to make general statements without a specific diff. Mccready 00:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What's unhelpful here is your wishing to "rescope" the question from the one at hand (whether's he's breached his probation), to one of your own divising, relating to "correctness" (which isn't the issue) of a specific set of terms (which only you have brought up). If you're unclear on the points I've made, please ask specific questions, but don't expect the admins discussing the case to jump though arbitrary hoops. Alai 01:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

(discussion continued with new indent) Alai, I apologise for upsetting you with the term unhelpful. It was unhelpful of me :-) You've made a specific allegation against Instantnood. I'm wondering why you feel you are being asked to jump through arbitrary hoops when asked to provide a single link to verify your allegation? Mccready 02:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No, you're asking me to back up claims of the matters you've asserted he's innocent of, which have nothing to do with what I said. I've referred you to two specific articles: are you unsure what edits are at issue, or are you disputing that they're problematic? Alai 03:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Alai, you said "His treatment of the SARs is not correct". Will you please provide me a specific diff so I can assess this? Mccready 04:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

And I've already referred you to the article in question. Is there some difficulty I'm not seeing here, or are you requesting a "diff" because you've mistaken this for a 3RR report? Given that IN is already blocked, and you're not being in the least clear about what further information (as distinct from process or format) you're lacking, I'm seeing less and less purpose to this. Alai 04:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I've checked the article I cannot find an incorrect use of terminology. Please help me out. No, I'm not mistaking this as a 3RR issue. Without you providing a specific diff to verify your claim what would do you think I could reasonably conclude about your claim?

I think what you could do is to look at the history of list of bridges, and quit being a pain in the... neck about "diffs". This isn't about "terminology", as I keep saying (and you keep blithely ignoring). Instant repeatedly reverts edits placing the SARs under the PRC heading. The SARs are part of the PRC. I've already stated this. Please explain why this is "correct". Please explain why this isn't a violation of his probation, when it's exactly the type of stunt that he had the probation imposed on him for. Alai 18:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

(discussion continued) Alai, I'm not ignoring your point and you describing me as a pain does you no credit. You are shifting the ground. You have made an accusation which remains unproven. You now say it is not about "diffs". What do we have in wikipedia if we don't have "diffs"?

Nonetheless, I have taken the time to do a little wikipedia research to demonstrate why I think you are wrong. The PRC is described as a country. The term country is used casually as both nation (a cultural entity) and state (a political entity). The SARs (Hong Kong, Macau) combined with "mainland China" is not a single cultural entity, nor a single political entity. Wikipedia says Each of the SARs has a Basic Law which provides those regions with a high degree of autonomy, a separate political system and a capitalist economy under the principle of "one country, two systems". Discounting the political slogan (see below) in favour of the other elements of the definition, there is a strong case for treating the SARs as Instantnood does.

"China" is one of the last great territorial, as opposed to economic, empires remaining in the world. It has imposed a primitive writing system on a group of languages and cultures arguably more diverse than eastern and western Europe. Most of southern China speak languages closer to Thai (Zhuangxi) and Vietnamese than to Mandarin. The Qinghai/Tibetan plateau occupied in 1959 is culturally and linguistically Tibetan, with the exception of colonial transmigration. The regions west of Xi'an are ethnically muslim (the vast territory of "Xinjiang" was only taken in 1918), the regions of the north are Russian or Korean. etc etc. What's left is a Han ethnic heartland where even the rulers speak bad Mandarin. It's a sad day when encyclopedia writers fail to grasp these facts. The problem, as always, is writing NPOV articles which avoid the propaganda and belief systems of the subjects of the articles.

To put it briefly, and my only claim is on the evidence I have examined, Instantnood is correct and you have yet to demonstrate your claim that he is in error. Until we as a community acknowledge this I don't think a satisfactory solution will be achieved. Mccready 16:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully I'm "shifting the ground" back to what it should have been all along, Instantnood's behaviour as it relates to his probation, though the bulk of your reply suggests I'm having very limited success in doing so. On the contrary, I answered your demand that I address the "correctness" of his edits, as opposed to their disruptiveness, so I really don't see any substance to your complaint (even were it reasonable in the first instance, whereas I still maintain it's a tangent). What we do in Wikipedia "when we don't have diffs" is to find them ourselves. You're still yet to say what confusion or lack of specificity exists in the examples you've been given, or to address the material points I've raised relating to them, so insisting that "diffs" be provided seems to me a highly arbitrary demand, and one that satisfying seems highly unlikely to advance discussion. I'll skip a response to your paragraph on China'a undoubted diversity in any number of repects (especially since you found "being a pain" to be an immoderate characterisation), and attempt not to draw the obvious conclusion that you're suggesting that this editor is unaware of same (not that I'd claim to be China expert by any remote stretch), as opposed to my actual awareness of their irrelevance to matters at hand.

You seem to be defending some set of edits other than the ones made by Instantnood on list of bridges, given that the terminology you're seeking to defend him on isn't used in that article, and nor was it introduced by his edits, nor anyone else's in that time frame. Given that the heading was "China, People's Republic of", which by your own argument is not a "single cultural entity" but a sovereign state, why is it remotely defensible to remove a component of that sovereign state out from under that heading -- without changing said heading -- to a different heading entirely, suggesting some sort of sibling relationship between the PRC (and Australia, and US, etc) on the one hand, and Macau and HK on the other? Nor is, or ever was, there any statement in that article to suggest that the organisation is by anything other than by sovereign state: indeed, it contains the United Kingdom under a single heading, by any argument an entity comprised of several "cultural entities", constituent countries, systems of law, etc, etc, etc, not separately by component. Nor did he even use his usual formula of "Mainland China" to rescope the entry to exclude the SARs (dubious as that might have been as regards being a desirable reorgnisation, it would at least have avoided being prima facie factually incorrect). If these were such great edits, why is no-one else repeating them; why is no-one, IN included, troubling to argue for them on the article's talk page? Rather, they're long since reverted, and wikipedia is the better for being rid of them, though worse off for the grief caused thereby -- small in itself, but aggregated over a large number of repetitions, very wearing.

What's really problematic about these edits, however, is not their mere "incorrectness" -- if that were a hanging offenses, some members of the arbcom would have had to perm-ban themselves long ago. It's the dogged reversion, and in someone else's phrase, "filibustering" on talk pages over matters where consensus has long been established (such as over the spelling of "Macau"/"Macao"), rather than constructive discussion and useful editing. That's why he's on probation, and that's what he's perceived as continuing to engage in. You can try to scope the discussion any way you like, and make assertions about what I'm "yet to demonstrate", but that's the reality of the situation, and unless you get his arbcom ruling overturned, or persuade all 1000ish admins to forsake future enforcement of it, it'd be prudent to acknowledge that. You'll notice that while you were arguing on AN/I against the remedy I was suggesting, a far tougher one was being imposed regardless, and if IN continues the same behaviour, that's likely to continue, and indeed escalate. The person best placed to change this would be IN himself, and if your have any influence over him you'd be acting in his interests to prevail on him to modify his actions, not to implicitly encourage him to continue them as-is by arguing for their correctness and non-disruptiveness, against a fairly clear consensus otherwise. (I'm obviously not suggesting you not support or defend him on a case-by-case basis, ideally in a timely fashion rather than after the fact when it's become a post mortem, but a blanket "he's done nothing wrong" approach seems tactically unsounded, to say the least.)

Perhaps the concept of a "satisfactory solution" needs to make explicit whose satisfaction is at issue. There's nothing in IN's political position on the SARs that's incompatible with peaceable and constructive editing on these topics; other editors in good standing hold similar views (one or two spring to mind, though I'd better not put words in people's mouths, or drop clangers on the topic), but it seems clear to me that in many cases the consensus, and in others the mere facts are against him, and he needs variously better tactics, more people on his side, and some acknowledgement that some realities are not as he might wish. Alai 06:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Alai, you can shift the ground any way you wish but this is not really getting us anywhere is it? You've made an allegation. I've asked for a diff. You've said I should find a diff myself to support the allegation you've made. Then you ask me to go off looking in bridges. To support a claim I never made.

BTW I have NEVER said he's done nothing wrong. I've said repeatedly I only comment on what I know. On the edits I've checked he is correct. As to your understanding of the PRC? Wikipedia calls it a country not a single sovereign state. That's the point you seem to have missed. Mccready 13:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Acupuncture

Hi Kevin. I'm writing this in response to changes that you have been submitting to the acupuncture (and associated) pages over the past few months. There are some improvements to the acupuncture article in particular that have come from your input, and I for one am quite welcoming of the concept of putting some scientific discourse in all of [User_talk:Mccready/Archive_1#Your_user_page_and_WP:NPA these articles. I would like to continue to work on these pages and it seems that you are quite passionate about the topic of acupuncture and TCM. In order for us to move forward more harmoniously than we have in the past, I have a request of you. I ask that when editing you try to add an overall neutral POV feel to the pages, and that instead of only making "scientific" claims that debunk each topic that you are contributing to - that you only provide evidence for or remove only when forced to - that you also make 'scientific' claims that are supportive of acupuncture etc. There are (believe it or not) articles that haven't been scrutinised by the Cochrane Collaboration, and there are some good quality studies that get lost among the mountains of poor quality ones. It's also not on our shoulders to find the research to be debunking your claims - we simply don't have time - we're all volunteers here. If you're going to be stating a claim, I would like to be able to assume that you have adequately researched your statement, not just seeming to be pushing your own agenda after reading a literature review on quackwatch.org and taking it as gospel. Remember that the concensus so far from a lot of the meta-analyses is that more good quality studies need to be done, not that none of the studies are showing benefits. Your anti-altmed agenda is quite tiring, and it's difficult to edit pages to be NPOV when they are literally crawling with snide remarks here and there about the illegitimacy of acupuncture. For example, there is no need to say that

acupuncture needles are inserted into "acupuncture points".

Really, there is just no need for the quotation marks. The more that you insist on painting acupuncture and related topics in a bad light, the more obvious your agenda becomes. It's not appropriate to be pushing a non NPOV agenda on wikipedia. But I do welcome your input, as does Jim, because it's important to present the whole story of acupuncture and TCM - in a neutral light. But I ask that you please leave your anti-altmed attitude behind each time you sign in to make edits on wikipedia. We have been quite accommodating to your non NPOV stance so far, but I personally would like you to come halfway with us on this so that we can focus our energy into content rather than lengthy disputes about your non NPOV edits. Put all your anti-acupuncture propaganda on your own website, (which must almost be due for an update). I hope that we can reach some kind of understanding on this. Let me know if you have any problems with this request. Cheers, Piekarnia 06:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks P, I can understand where you, as an acupuncturist, are coming from. I did in fact point to Cochrane stuff which showed some support for acupuncture. Likewise on homoepathy there is one very good source that deserves consideration and is sympathetic to some of the claims for homeopathy. I referred to this on a number of occasions. If you check the inverted commas on acupuncture points you will see they have been there for a long time. I did not insert them and am very happy to remove them. Thus I'd be happy if you reconsider your accusation of snide remarks. I'm always happy to consider any good scientific article which may support your beliefs. As to more research needing to be done, that may well be, but meantime the consensus (spelling) is that acupunture does not stack up. Please examine your own beliefs too P. Is there anything on my website about acupuncture which is not supportable? I'm always happy, as a scientist, to be proved wrong. Finally, it may just be possible that you are wrong and I hope you too can admit this possibility. Mccready 06:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

My mistake Kevin, you didn't put the quotation marks there. I apologise for that, I looked at your edit and saw that there was changes made and somehow I read that you had put those in. (Too much computer screen viewing is making black into red). I also thank you for correcting my spelling mistake - consensus has always been one of those words for me :) I think Jim has already reverted your most recent edit anyhow.

I don't see where you're coming from with your remark about the Cochrane stuff, you continued to use the reference to the Cochrane collaboration as evidence that acupuncture is not supported by evidence based medicine - despite their findings for P6 and headache. Their remarks are not that it doesn't work for these conditions, and the remarks across the board are that there is some evidence that it does work for some conditions but that more good quality studies should be done (due to the overwhelming amount of poor quality research). The cochrane phrase that you are so fond of is not representative of the facts, therefore not NPOV. In regard to homeopathy, I myself find it very difficult to be NPOV on the topic so I prefer to stay away from editing the page. The snide remarks I referred to were more in relation to your edits from last week and previous, especially with reference to the AMA stuff and EBM (cochrane). Not to mention putting acupuncture points and acupressure under the category of pseudoscience. Protoscience is a more representative tag given that the scientific testing is still continuing and so far non-conclusive for most conditions.

I'm not sure if you've actually read any of the acupuncture studies yourself, Kevin, or if you only get your information from the meta-analyses. I can provide you with references to some interesting studies that I have (for and against acupuncture) if you're interested in reading more than a summary of a summary. Do you have access to download articles from pubmed or academic premier? I agree that most of the claims are not supported by the evidence - read a few hundred of the "typical" acupuncture studies out there and you'll see why all the meta-analyses are so negative. It actually makes me really angry to read the studies most of the time because they are so poorly executed and the researchers have just wasted time and resources producing a study that CAN'T prove anything.

It is a possibility that acupuncture won't be fully supported by science, but as far as I'm concerned it is my career and I do provide good results to 90% of my clients. The 10% of clients that don't get results within a reasonable amount of time are referred for treatment elsewhere because I'm not into providing a service that is not beneficial for their condition. It DOES has amazing effects a lot of the time, and rarely causes people to become worse (unlike western medicine which has enormous capacity to cause harm and doesn't have answers for a lot of complaints). You don't need to be a "believer" to see the benefits that people can get from acupuncture.

If there does come a time when the scientists say "we've looked at it every which way and it just doesn't work at all and provides no benefits" then I would consider changing careers. I have a very strong scientific background, and I'm happy to update my beliefs when they are disproven. But I don't consider poorly performed studies to prove anything, other than most researchers in the field can't design a study for peanuts. When there are well designed studies that are representative of the way that acupuncture is used (rather than testing cookbook acupuncture which isn't as effective from my experience) then come and talk to me about the results. From my experiences as a practitioner I doubt that there will ever be such strong negative evidence concluding the ineffectiveness of acupuncture, and I suspect that the answer will lay somewhere in between the two extremes.

Your website doesn't reflect the reasoning that you discuss on wikipedia, but it does represent a very negative and uninformed stance on acupuncture quite clearly. You don't provide evidence and you engage in rhetoric, but it's your website, so do as you please :)

In regard to NPOV, can you understand why myself and others regularly refer to your wikipedia editing style as non NPOV?Piekarnia 08:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks P, you have the wrong end of the logic stick I'm afraid, and aren't thinking like a scientist. Instead of sticking to your beliefs and demanding they be disproved (you can never prove a negative) you need to say the evidence is not yet in, therefore I can't believe. It's a brave step to take and if you do you may suffer existential angst, but soon you'll enjoy the liberating feeling.

On the Cochrane stuff I can't agree with you. The overwhelming evidence is that no effectivenes has been demonstrated. The P6 review, done with an acupuncturist on the study, is hotly disputed. If you check the definition of psuedoscience - acupressure, etc belong firmly there. Protoscience is not a word in the Oxford English Dictionary or Websters. It seems to be a term favoured by some wikipedians defending pseudoscience and unpopular theories. As to your beliefs that acupuncture works because you see it in front of your eyes I make two points. 1. The placebo is an enormously powerful thing, particularly for "non-serious" problems. 2. without double blind controls and well-designed studies separating multiple variables you have absolutely no way of checking your beliefs. For example, other acupuncture friends of mine are happy to say that lying still in a dark room for a while with needles stuck in you is a great way to enforce relaxation and it may be that alone which is powerful.

I thought you had to pay for Pub Med full articles. And what's the story re Academic Premier?

Yes I certainly understand why you perceive me as being a POV editor, but can't agree. I'm just trying to present good articles devoid of special pleading. Jim's latest refusal to acknowledge Korean hand acupuncture is a case in point. Mccready 11:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kevin -- am happy to keep discussing these issues on the acu talk page. Briefly, Bandolier and Cochrane, prominent EBM reviewers, actually concur on P6 and nausea. SRAM disagrees but isn't of the same stature and its editor Sampson, of NCAHF SLAPPSUIT fame, obviously has an axe to grind. On Korean Hand acu, it's a matter of balance and proportion, or undue weight -- we should mention salient things about Korean acu by all means, but be balanced about it. Since Korean Hand acu is a relatively minor branch of acu, the lead is not a place to highlight stuff about it. Unless you have an axe to grind, which the evidence suggest you do.

I think your posts occupy a spectrum between POV and NPOV. They tend to fall somewhere between reasonable and over-the-top, the latter being exemplified by these diffs pointed out by other users in the archived page:

Examples of his problematic editing: he changed the intro of Trigger point to: "Trigger points have no basis in science. They are claimed by medical quacks to be hyperirritable spots in skeletal muscle ..." [1] His first sentence of Chiropractic was that it's a "religion and controversial system of health care founded by the crank Daniel David Palmer."

Most Wikipedians, I think, would justly criticize those edits, and your pleas to presume good faith ring a bit hollow when you engage in such behavior. It's easier to presume good faith when it's obviously being practiced rather than skirted. To your credit you retracted the above edits, but they suffice as exteme examples of the trend in your posts toward POV. You've repeatedly made POV edits to lead sections, such as saying that "Acupuncture theory is not based on health knowledge accepted by the scientific community.". I will repeat my objections to that:

"True for the most part, but not an adequate summary of what the article says about theory. If the lead section is going to discuss theory, it should say what it is (TCM, etc.) as well as what it isn't, and do so in proportional correspondence to what the article says about it. WP:LEAD is quite clear that the criteria for sentences in the lead section are not just that they be true, but that they adequately summarize the article. Given that, how is it justifiable to say about acu theory only that it's not scientific?"

I'd appreciate it if you chewed on my reply and responded with your interpretation of WP:LEAD. It's not enough just to say true things in the lead. What we omit also matters. Hence NPOV. The lead section should adequately summarize the article in terms of tone and weight. It's not a place for sound-biting favoring one agenda. So, no special pleading necessary, but balanced and equal pleading would be appreciated, and more in line with the spirit and letter of Wikipedia. thx, Jim Butler 08:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Jim, your characterisation of Cochrane and Bandolier is generally correct but not exactly right - I've made adjustments on the page. There is no scientific evidence for Trigger Points. If you know anything about the history of chiropractic and the claims of its founder and today's believers, the suggested edit was not beyond the bounds of possibility. As to acupuncture theory not being based on science, you have said as much yourself Jim. Soundbiting? You too have been guilty on that score and we should both make efforts to avoid it. Thanks for the message and I appreciate your efforts to avoid POV. Mccready 16:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, you keep letting the constructitve criticism from me and others slide off you like water off a duck's back. Apparently you're still defending your choice of terms like "quack" and "religion", and you're still avoiding the point I raised about the lead section (i.e., the criterion being not just truth-value, but adequacy in summarizing the article). I'd hoped that you'd be willing to consider these issues in the spirit of reducing conflict and having more fruitful collaboration, but do as you will. As for soundbiting, if I've done so, please show me any diffs so I have a better idea what you mean. Jim Butler 19:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess we have to agree to disagree Jim. I won't take offence that you feel I can't respond to constructive criticsm. By any definition I know of, Palmer, the founder of chiropractic was a quack. He himself labelled his activities a religion in order to avoid the authorities who had already jailed him for violating the laws related to medical quackery. I agree with you about the lead, but it's always a question of what's worth summarizing and what's not. Editors who believe in pseudoscience often want every piece of "evidence" no matter how slim and no matter how contested to be in the lead - though I will say you try to be objective. I'm all into reducing conflict and collaborating and make strenuous efforts along these lines despite editors' abuse which you may have noticed on the chiropractic talk page and elsewhere. Soundbite? I give you the example of an editor on Facilitated communication who said this is mostly about the sources, but I also belive that this page is attempting heavily biased towards FC. it does note cite many studies that have found FC to be lacking, and the trend of the page is to lay out the skeptical argument in a sentance and then spend a paragraph responding. Also, since Fc apears to lack much(if any) coroberating evidence, the article spends alot of time citing anticdotes or appeals to emotion. You then responded on 6 March 2006 Your difficulties with facts, logic and written communication make it somewhat difficult to address the points you raise. There's not a lot to be gained by rehashing the arguments here, but the user had made some good points, which you also acknowledged. Nonetheless your defence of the word "eloquent" for example was spin/soundbiting/povish. You went on to make some more personal remarks directed at the editor which I guess you would not be proud off. Mccready 10:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

True re "eloquent" as POV. Regarding that discussion, the editor you quote was somewhat [dense], but that didn't justify my veering into [dickishness] at times. However, I did address his points once I figured out what they were, and since then have been collaborating with a third editor via email. So it ended well, with a better article, and my learning more both about FC and how Wikipedia works.

I'm not claming moral high ground or that you're impervious to all criticism. I'm glad to see you acknowledging what USer:Friday says below. Yes, there is always going to be debate about what's important enough to put in the lead section. What I object to is putting new, contentious stuff in the lead section that isn't already in the article, and the use of loaded words like "crank" where something more neutral would suffice. thx, Jim Butler 21:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractic - advocating research

I didn't see anything about advocating further reasearch in [[2]]. It's not trying to be a crystal ball, research is ongoing, what is the harm in saying that?--Hughgr 17:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of answering this user's question on their talk page. Sorry if I'm treading on your toes here but it seemed a good idea to get these little confusions out of the way quickly. Jefffire 17:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem Jefffire. For me the community is like a big discussion around the family dinner table. Jump in whenever you please.

Hugh, WP:NOT says wikipedia is not a place to insert your personal opionion. It seems to be your opinion that chiropractic needs further research which you hope will give it more scientific legitimacy than it has. Other people may have an opinion that sufficient human resources have already been spent on such endeavour. Either way, it's not allowed to insert your opinions. It is allowed to use well-sourced information to enhance the value of the article for the reader. The reader can form their own opinion as to whether further research is warranted or not. Thanks for taking the time to ask. Mccready 00:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps advocating is not the word to best describe what I'm trying to get across. There is currently ongoing research [3]. What is wrong with saying that research in still happening, without trying to predict what the results would be, obviously.--Hughgr 02:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Hugh, yes advocating is wrong. There is nothing wrong with reporting ongoing research if relevance can be established. The question then becomes the prominence it's given. There is research in almost any field of human endeavor you care to name, but it may not be relevant to make the point in the lead of every article. Shall we see what you come up with and where it might belong in the article back on the talkpage for chiro? Mccready 02:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Something to read

I appreciate having editors around who want to improve the quality of the science in articles, but there are good and bad ways to go about it. This might be a good read for you. Friday (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope no implication was intended. A specific diff from my edits in the last week may be helpful. Mccready 06:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I do think you exhibit some of these symptoms- hence the message. As for a specific diff, this is as good an example as anyone could ask for. You've made this edit more than once, too, after being reverted by others. They've even explained why it's a bad edit, but I'll try explaining again. I'm no subject matter expert here, but even I can tell you why this is bad. Even if there's very clear consensus in the medical community that trigger points are BS, the first sentence "Trigger points have no basis in science. " is totally inappropriate for an article. POV issues aside, it tells us nothing about the subject. This is analogous to a rabid Christian coming in here and editing Jesus so the first sentence reads "Jesus is all about love." It doesn't matter whether that's true or not- it tells us nothing. Compare this to the current first sentence, "Jesus (8-2 BC/BCE– 29-36 AD/CE),[1] also known as Jesus of Nazareth, is the central figure of Christianity." This introduces the subject.

Anyway, I'm not tryin to be a jerk here, but I think your own strong opinions are clouding your judgement if you think "Trigger points have no basis in science" is a proper introductory sentence. If it's true they have no basis in science, this point will become clear elsewhere in the article. Compare it to something else with no basis in science- the first sentence of Dianetics reads "Dianetics is a body of theory and associated practices developed by author L. Ron Hubbard regarding the relationship of the mind and the body." This might not be great, but at least it attempts to introduce the subject. Anyway, I hope you can see the point I'm trying to make here. Unlike some folks who've become convinced you're a troll or other irredeemable trouble-maker, I still think you're honestly trying to make useful edits- but you have to learn a bit about how we introduce subjects, and how we maintain a neutral point of view. Again, any editors bringing in the scientific perspective can clearly be an asset to the project, but we all have to remember that neutral point of view is not the same thing as scientific point of view. We can say things like "Advocates say blah blah blah, but critics respond by saying blah blah blah", citing sources as appropriate. We dispassionately describe things, including conflicts, without trying to pick one side to be the correct one. The reader is left to make that judgement by themselves. Hope this helps. Friday (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

PS. Don't take this as discouragement- if it helps, I've seen any number of other edits from you lately that seem quite reasonable and well phrased in a neutral way. Friday (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

PPS. I just realized I misread the date on that diff- perhaps this is all old news by now. Friday (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Friday, hey look I really do appreciate the time you've taken on this. Yes it's a bit out of date but I can see your point and yes it wasn't a good opening for an encyclopedic article. I guess I've been too influenced by the statement The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science[4]. As you've noticed, I think I'm getting better as I go. I'll certainly keep in mind what you advise. With people like you around the project still has hope. Mccready 15:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. And you're right- the issue of giving "undue weight" to minority opinions is one of the trickier things we deal with here. If you get into a disagreement on that issue, tread carefully. When there are beliefs that are not accepted by mainstream science, we certainly can say that they're not accepted by mainstream science. Another good way to look at it is "verifiability, not truth." We don't delete Piltdown man because it turned out to not be true- we cover it as such. It was a forgery, but a verifiable, significant forgery. Friday (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes the challenge is to define something in the lead without accepting as fact the POV definition of the believers - a bit like allowing paranoids or children to say what paranoia or childhood is. I'll have another attempt to achieve this balance on Trigger Points. Mccready 15:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Trigger points

Check out Bandolier on fibromyalgia and trigger points. Their existence is accepted, at least in the sense of diagnosis by palpation. The debate appears to be over whether treating them in some way is efficacious. From what I've seen there is some evidence to that effect, probably not to EBM criteria, but there is some. Jim Butler 21:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Jim, this is a classic example of how pseudoscience works. The perpetrators pick something discussed scientifically (often on the fringe), elaborate from their imaginations, then presto (particularly if it's an area of real concern to a lot of people). In the article you cite the conclusion is The criterion of eleven painful trigger points looks a poor diagnostic bet. The problem with assessing painful trigger points are several. There is no gold standard against which they can be measured. Experts elicit different numbers [2] in the same patients. ... The evidence for the usefulness of trigger points is thin. The table was a stunner in showing lack of evidence.

For a particular lousy piece of "research" from mainstream medicine (lest I be imagined as biased towards them) check out this. And having checked out the American College of Rheumatology, I'm not convinced there isn't overservicing based on poor science[5]. Having said all that I'm willing to concede that yes there may be something in it. But the evidence is not there yet.

Seems to me that if you press points on a patient with chronic widespread pain - you'll inevitably find "trigger points". It might be slightly unfair, but the usual quack suspects are cited on the trigger point page. If people like Kelly had a decent research record you'd be inclined to take them more seriously. I'll copy this to tigger talk for ref. Mccready 02:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Mccready- Please read about fibromyalgia before you take a sentence out of context and apply it to a field. I would appreciate it if you would cite a reference when you state that Trigger Point Therapy is not accepted in mainstream medicine. I assume that you are British, so you can check with your doctors and ask them. In Europe, Myoskeletal medecine uses Trigger Point therapy extensively. As a practitioner who works in the Physical Therapy office of the Spine Surgery Center in my town, I have helped many peole with this modality, having been introduced to it after one year of "mainstream medicine" failed to diagnose and treat my chronic leg pain. The world needs some skeptics who have an agenda to prove, but please try to prove it with facts.psnack

Thanks psnack. You're a wee bit out of date. The fbmy ref was fixed by consensus. The mainstream point was already part of the article, I simply moved it. There are sufficient refs in the article to demonstrate the validity of the point. Have you checked my editing principles for pseudoscience articles? Some of the claims you have made fall into those categories in addition to your logical error in appealing to authority. Mccready 09:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Reiki Science

Reiki doesn't claim to be a science. Googling "Reiki cooking" yields >400,000 matches and it still doesn't mean Reiki claims to be a method of cooking. Your argument that googling "Reiki science" proves Reiki claims to be a science is both original research and faulty logic.

To write the article properly you'll need to first establish a substantial source whre Mikao Usui calls Reiki a science and then you'll have to establish the evidence that it isn't a science and then, and only then, could you use the phrase "Reiki has no scientific basis"... which is a violently absolutist phrase anyway. Try reading WP:NPOV. Ciao. 58.178.137.47 07:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You miss the point of the argument. If you actually read some of the first listed pages they set out WHY reiki is a science. I have reported you for vandalizing the page and being a suspected sock puppet. Mccready 08:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You're applying the same amount of evidence you use in the article to your accusations against me -- none. I note there are several other editors who repudiate your edits on that page. It's a common flaw to think that just because you're in the minority that there's a gang of sockpuppets against you. I've been following your recents edits and it seems you have an obsession with calling things pseudoscience. What's your profession? 58.178.137.47 11:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Of scientists and lead sections

Hi Kevin, I just reverted your insertion of the term "oxymoronic" in the lead section on anecdotal evidence. I've also reverted your unwarranted use of the term "pseudoscientific" in the lead section for prolotherapy. It appears to me that you have developed a pattern of making contentious, POV edits to lead sections of articles on alternative medicine and science, and I'm going to be keeping en eye on these. I hope you understand that my intention is not to harass or intimidate you, but to improve the articles, and perhaps to encourage collaboration before we both go off on a new round of multiple edits and reverts.

I understand you have some strongly-held views about science. To my eyes, some of your edits have been rather simplistic and uninformed. Your calling "anecdotal evidence" "oxymoronic" is a good example of this. Scientists and clinicians can and do rely on information gleaned from case studies and single observations all the time. You've also used phrases like "trigger points have no basis in science", which is just not how scientists think: rather, they look for naturalistic explanations and testable hypotheses. With trigger points, both exist; the issue is how much data exist and how reliable they are. Thin data for a naturalistically explicable, testable phenomenon do not make it "lack a basis in science", or make it "pseudoscientific". That sort of rhetoric is hardly ever encountered from intelligent, active researchers. It is seen all-too-frequently in journalists and advocates, people who espouse skepticism with evengelical fervor underpinned by belief rather than a gut-level understanding of how science works.

All editors have some POV blind spots and gaps in our knowledge. I'm attempting to point out a couple of yours in a constructive way here. Edits like the above don't reflect the sort of thinking that practicing scientists develop, and judging from the homepage you've posted, you don't appear to have a graduate degree in science or to have spent any extended period of time actually doing scientific research. Usually it's in such settings that one learns how to frame scientific issues in a clear and nuanced fashion. Much of what you contribute here is valuable, but you're doing more than irritating true believers by skewering their sacred cows; you're adding POV stuff and making broad-brush assertions like "X has no basis in science", which are simply meaningless, if not outright misleading and wrong. I don't think people would mind your edits so much if you were more measured and factually correct, but when you're both cocky and wrong, you should expect people to ask you to stop strutting around pretending to be a "scientist", and instead to please engage in a little more cooperative collaboration befitting this site. Strong words, but this has been going on awhile, so please take it as a friendly wake-up call and invitation to more cooperation.

Wikipedia's policies of NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR are elegant ways of avoiding articles getting bogged down in advocacy-debates over whether anecdotal evidence is oxymoronic, or reiki is pseudoscientific, etc. We just cite sources, say who says what, and why. Why not discuss some of your contemplated changes with me or other users who are interested in similar subjects, and have scientific backgrounds? Why not consult a little before going off on a series of similar edits that will probably, based on past experience, be contentious? Wouldn't that be easier than changing the lead sections of 10 articles to say something dubious and contentious, and then undergoing 10 reversion/edit/discussion cycles on 10 different pages? thx, Jim Butler 20:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your essay Jim. I'm happy to change the wording "no basis in science". 1) As to your claim that Randi hasn't said exact words that reiki is a pseudoscience - you appear to being deliberately obstructive and obtuse. We can very legitimately make the inference that Randi does indeed think exactly that, so I have reverted. 2) On oxymoronic anecdotal evidence, check the wikipedia page on oxymoron - you may disagree but I have also reverted that. If you could try to check facts before you edit we may all contribute a little more efficiently. 3) I refrain from comment on your gratuitous comments post your perusal of my CV and your personal attack that I am "strutting" and "cocky". When it gets to this level of personal attack .... Mccready 07:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

(1) I'm sure Randi think Reiki is pseudoscientific, but he doesn't say that in the cite -- though he does ridicule and challenge a Reiki practitioner. (2) I know what oxymoron means. See the talk page for anecdotal evidence. (3) Presumably you posted a link to your CV for a reason -- you keep claiming to be a scientist, but your edits suggest you're more of the true-believer-skeptical stripe. The short version of my critique/diatribe above is don't be dense -- your edits speak for themselves on POV and oversimplification, and you seem pretty impervious to criticism on this. As soon as you retire one lead-section riff, up pops another equally dubious and contentious one, a la whack-a-mole. Whether due to arrogance or ignorance, it's still dense. Tonight I see you're reverting articles without even acknowledging discussion of those same edits on talk pages. I strongly suspect you're headed for some sort of "intervention" or whatever it's called that admins around here do, and when that happens you'll probably take that as some sort of validation of your approach. Belief in all its glory. Since there's more than a grain of truth to your approach, it's all the harder for you to see the parts that are gratuittous. You might find Jim Lippard's critical links interesting. -Jim Butler 08:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A further word on the oxymoron anecdotal evidence Jim. Your edit summary conflated it with "single data points and case studies". If this were the case then they wouldn't be "anecdote" would they? Mccready 14:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, according to the WP article on anecdotal evidence, published case studies ARE considered an example of same. Bottom line, as Jokestress said on the talk page, your designation is an opinion requiring a source.

To recap: please stop inserting unsourced opinions into lead sections, especially when the issue is not already covered in the body of the article. These contentious micro-edits are not helpful. Instead I suggest first making the edit in the body of the article, see what editing and discussion ensues, and then find an adequate, sourced, NPOV summary for the lead. Your going around inserting little POV phrases into lead sections is poor Wikiquette and is creating headaches for other editors. Please extend the courtesy of attempting to understand this request, and saying if you disagree and why. BTW, I applaud your dropping "no basis in science", but I'm asking that you stop the overall pattern, not find creative new ways to push its limits. thx, -Jim Butler 20:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Mccready, I strongly advise you to take Jim Butler's words to heart. He's pointing out the very same problems with your editing that others have pointed out before. If someone disagrees with your edit, do not just keep putting it back. Continued biased editing and excessive reverts can be grounds for a disruption block. We have a high degree of tolerance here, but continuing to try the community's patience is a bad thing. Friday (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Boohoo

Mccready. If you want to cry "foul play" go cry elsewhere. Any review of your actions will reveal your blatant double-standards. I welcome a review of the edits you've been rampantly spewing into alternative medicine articles. I mean truly... you say "X has no basis in science" repeated ad-nauseum. And then you ask other people to cite facts and stop being biased. What a kidder. 202.67.127.250 13:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

202 you obviously haven't read or haven't understood what I have written above. I'm very happy to change the wording "no basis in science". See, aren't I a flexible cooperative editor? Now it's over to you... By the way did you see my new world class scientific dissection at [6]. And Jim, I checked the link you suggested. Yawn I'm afraid. Strawman logic is not logic. Hey it's fun when pseudoscientists get so upset with the truth that they revert to personal abuse. Just shows eh? Mccready 13:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you at all familiar with Jim Lippard? He's a skeptic but not a dogmatist, and there is more than straw-man stuff at his site along those lines (though some of the links he's collected are better than others). Here is a good example of a non-dogmatic skeptical approach where the author isn't afraid to call a spade a spade when it comes to bias from fellow skeptics. - Jim Butler 20:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Your talk page is full of these kind of hollow offers to remove your steamy merdeux from articles. It would be much simpler if you didn't spew out junk in the first place. I think Jim is right. You're heading for some kind of intervention. 202.67.127.250 13:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Mccready, I'm going to leave a civility warning on IP 202.67.127.250 talk. Let me know if they keep on bothering you. Best to reach me by email these days. (I'm going to sent you an email with my best email address. I was trying out gmail account when I emailed you before.) Don't bait 202, okay. : - ) FloNight ^talk 13:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Flo, I'll stop. I suspect 202 is a sockpuppet and I have a feeling I know who it is, having checked contribution times for a couple of new anon accounts and the suspect. Mccready 13:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed this editor's contributions last night as well, when we were both online and veering dangerously into lame edit-war land. For the record, I have no idea who it is, or whether s/he's a sock puppet. -Jim Butler 20:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Excessive reverting

I see 3 reverts each that you've done today on Prolotherapy and Reflexology, and more reverts earlier in the histories. This is excessive. I'm not trying to make any judgments on the merits of the content, but edit warring is a bad thing. I won't block for it right now, but if I see this again, I won't hesitate to block you for excessive reverting, whether you've technically broken the WP:3RR or not. Three reverts a day is not an entitlement! Reverts do not magically cease to be disruptive just because you stop at 3 a day instead of adding a 4th. I see two blocks in your log for 3RR violations, so I'm pretty sure you understand the rule. Friday (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, with Prolo, I'd like to note that I too was guilty of some edit warring and have come close to 3RR. However, I strive to engage discussion on the talk pages between edits. What I find troublesome, Kevin, is when you revert without engaging in substantive discussion, and sometimes not engaging at all (cf. some your popup reverts on Prolo). I think we all owe each other at least that courtesy. -Jim Butler 22:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

thanks Friday and Jim. Yes I've been aware that there may be this perception in recent days. I'll publish a statement on my userpage and will try to revert only after discussion. But for efficiency reasons ... well, see my statement of editing principles. Mccready 09:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with a lot of what you're saying. I just want you to take it easy. Sometimes, we have to live with compromise. Now, we can't let our compromising result in an article that says "Phrenology is a completely legitimate science which will save the world" - we have to be reasonable. I think your input can be useful to many articles, but only if you manage to edit harmoniously. Even when you're in the right, you can't just run around insisting that everything be the exact way you want it to be. Remember, there's no harm in making your point on a talk page and waiting a few days to see if others agree with you. We don't need to hurry when improving articles- they'll still be there tomorrow. If you ever want a third party to help out on a dispute, feel free to drop me a note. I'm not a subject matter expert on this sort of thing, but I think I have a good grasp of NPOV and I'm willing to try to help mediate if there's disagreement. Friday (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)