Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:00, 5 November 2008

Template:Archive box collapsible

Notification

The RFC was very clear. There was consensus that spinal manipulation is relevant to chiropractic. Editors should avoid arguing on the grounds that there is OR in chiropractic based on general SM research. If editors still have concerns about OR it should not be based on claims that SM is not related when there is a clear consensus that SM is related according to the closing administrator. Editors need to abide by the closing of the RFC. Here are more comments from the closing administrator. Please abide. QuackGuru 22:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You have previously been asked not to edit my talk page. Please stay away from it.. The RfC in question clearly stated that it was "not about the OR policy or other policies", and was "NOT about any relation between generic spinal manipulation and chiropractic spinal manipulation" which is the crux of the OR matter. Please do not attempt to misrepresent the RfC. DigitalC (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

According to Elonka I can comment at user talkpages. This is part of dispute resolution. Addtionally, another admin has clearly explained how to proceed with spinal manipulation. The admin closed the recent RFC as consensus that spinal manipulation is relevant to chiropractic. Please respect the decision by the closing administrator. Here are more recommendations the admin made on how to proceed. Part of your comments claim it is WP:OR to use spinal manipulation. When SM is core to chiropractic it is directly relevant. QuackGuru 23:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent my comments, especially on my userpage. My comments claim it is WP:OR to use general spinal manipulation research (not chiropractic spinal manipulation) on Chiropractic. This is NOT what the RfC was about. Please abide by the closing admin's subsequent comments. DigitalC (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

How is it OR when spinal manipulation is directly relevant? QuackGuru 00:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

We've been through this before, and are unlikely to make any progress here. Please do not post here unless you have something new to say. Again, general spinal manipulation is not directly related to chiropractic, chiropractic spinal manipulation is directly related to chiropractic. DigitalC (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the closing administrator of the recent RFC: Sorry if I wasn't clear, I am not suggesting that the RfC covered the OR question, what I'm asking is that arguments that say "SM isn't relevant here" or "this doesn't relate" stop. There are clearly other issues at hand and other parts of the OR discussion that need to be resolved, but the "SM doesn't belong here" argument should be put to bed. I understand it is possible you might of missed this comment. It is very clear editors should avoid the claim that spinal manipulation is not directly related to chiropractic when the recent RFC determined is relevant. The reason being, there is a clear consensus that SM is relevant to this article. QuackGuru 03:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I asked you directly above not to post on my page unless you have something new to say. I am not claiming that SM isn't relevant here, in fact chiropractic SM is quite relevant, however general spinal manipulation is not relevant unless the authors of the source state that it is in that instant. Perhaps you missed the comments from the closing admin, directly personally at you, (even though I linked it above) that stated "RfC conclusions are not bludgeons. QuackGuru, this needs to stop - the RfC was quite specific in its scope, so discussions about specific text, how its relevant and how it should be used should not be short-circuited by whacking people with the decisions from this particular RfC". Please abide by these comments from the admin, as well as my requests that you not post here unless you have something new to say (ie, not repeating the same old arguments). DigitalC (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You know chiropractic SM is quite relevant according to your most recent comment but you claim general spinal manipulation is not relevant. I don't think there is any difference between general SM and SM. There is an article called spinal manipulation but it does not state general spinal manipulation is not the same as SM. Generic, general, and regular spinal manipulation is the same thing IMHO. QuackGuru 03:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Chiropractic SM is relevant to Chiropratic. General/generic/unspecified spinal manipulation is not directly related to Chiropractic. Spinal manipulation is provided by MDs, DCs, DOs, NDs and PTs. If it is provided by anyone OTHER than a chiropractor, or it doesn't specify who provided it, it is not directly related to chiropractic. It is as simple as that. DigitalC (talk) 04:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Which directly contradicts the RfC (which made no difference between practitioners, but was all-inclusive) and chiropractic's two top researchers and authorities on the subject (Meeker and Haldeman):

• "We agree that many of the randomized trials we described were on spinal manipulation rather than specifically on chiropractic manipulation itself, but we believe that this is not a significant point. Chiropractors use all forms of manipulation. In the United States, more than 90% of all spinal manipulation services are provided by chiropractors, and research on spinal manipulation, like that on any other treatment method, is equally of value regardless of the practitioner providing it."

In terms of mainstream chiropractic thinking, you are indulging in a divurgent POV and OR, and thus placing your own editorial POV above them and the sources. -- Fyslee / talk 01:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Meeker WC, Haldeman S (2002). "Chiropractic: in response" (PDF). Ann Intern Med. 137 (8): 702.

(outdent)No, that doesn't directly contradict the RfC. As I pointed out when you first posted the RfC, it was too vague. The RfC only clarifies that SM is relevant and directly related to Chiropractic. We already knew that. It DOESN'T clarify what types of SM is relevant and directly related to Chiropractic. Obviously, Chiropractic SM is relevant and directly related. Are fish relevant to the ocean? Yes. Are all types of fish relevant to the ocean? No.

I have already posted on Talk:Chiropractic why I feel that Meeker & Haldeman is not relevant in this situation, and refuse to do so again here. By reposting it here, you are merely beating a dead horse. DigitalC (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I'll be off and leave you alone. Take care. -- Fyslee / talk 02:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Spinal manipulation is directly related to chiropractic according to the references presented. SM is a technique strongly associated and directly related to chiropractic. Per WP:OR, when SM is directly connected to chiropractic it is okay to cite research that has a direct connection. QuackGuru 16:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Missing sigs

FYI, two of your last three comments at Talk chiropractic are missing their sigs. Normally a bot fixes that, but it doesn't seem to be working. -- Fyslee / talk 01:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup - I've gone and added signatures on them. DigitalC (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Circular arguments at Talk:Chiropractic

Copied from the talk page to ensure you see this. We've tried gentle reminders and redirection here and that doesn't seem to be working, so let me put this very clearly one more time. Levine, DigitalC (and anyone else I missed making the same argument) the RfC was clear that SM was related to Chiropractic. I understand that you disagree with this outcome, but Misplaced Pages works by consensus. Any further argumentation along those lines should be dropped post haste or you may find yourself taking a break from the article for continuing disruption. If you have a concern about the specific wording of the section or a concern using a specific study from that section, please discuss that content issue directly. If you continue to stall work on resolving these disputes with another general argument that somehow SM research may not or can not or isn't good enough for the article, expect a topic ban to come shortly after. Shell 22:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The RfC was clear that it was "NOT about any relation between generic spinal manipulation and chiropractic spinal manipulation" (direct quote from Rules of engagement over RfC). Any OR argument that I have is based on THAT argument, NOT based on the argument that "SM is not related to Chiropractic". Further, as an admin you know that an RfC cannot change policy. WP:OR states that reliables sources "directly support the information as it is presented." We do not have any sources that support the information as it is presented, because it is being presented in an article on Chiropractic, which is NOT how it is presented in the sources. I expect a clarification message from you, because for you to state that if bring forward an argument that "SM research may not or can not or isn't good enough for the article" (even though the RfC clearly stated it was "NOT about any relation between generic spinal manipulation and chiropractic spinal manipulation, and that it was "NOT about 'research'" ), and even though 15 editors have supported, in some form or another through talk page participation, removal of such information, seems like obstruction of my participation in the wikipedia project, and misrepresentation of the respective RfC. DigitalC (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Further, I request that you strikeout the comment about me " work on resolving these disputes". I have no intention of stalling any resolution, and to imply that I do as not assuming good faith, something what a WP admin should know. DigitalC (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You are correct in saying that the RfC was "NOT about any relation between generic spinal manipulation and chiropractic spinal manipulation"; the RfC was considerably more broad. You may wish to re-read the actual question of the RfC and the closing statement that explained the consensus. You may view the outcome as incorrect, but you may not continue along as though the consensus did not exist; to do so constitutes disruptive or tendentious editing. Please remember that just because you believe something is original research doesn't make it so - especially when you have a wealth of other editors (and RfCs) that disagree with you.

As I explained, this is not intended to curb all discussion or opine on the suitability of content. If you have a specific statement or source in the article that you think is problematic or misrepresented, you are free to discuss those issues on their merits. You will not be permitted to continue a discussion that has been the topic of several RfCs and that is, on its face, far to general to impact article content.

Whether or not you intended to stall the discussion and keep the OR tag on the article as long as possible is immaterial; your actions and circular arguments have amounted to the same. If you'd like to continue to work on article content and resolving these content disputes, you'll find that identifying what changes you would like to see in the article and discussing them specifically is much more likely to garner results than months of generalized arguments. Shell 22:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

As a motion amending the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to pseudoscience. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. Shell 23:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)