Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:35, 21 November 2013

This user is a scientist.

This user is an acupuncturist.

This user is a humanist.

Template:Busy2
Privacy note: Do not post any personal information about me on Misplaced Pages beyond what I disclose on this page. If you know, or think you know, any other personal information about me -- such as my real name or any previous accounts I've had -- don't post it (per WP:OUTING). I've had to deal with some harassment in the past from fanatical editors, and now choose to edit pseudonymously.

If you leave a message here, I will reply here unless you state a different preference. It's much easier for me to keep conversations in one place.

Archives (as yet incomplete; check the history)

Handling disruptive "skeptic" editors

At Talk:Acupuncture, Herbxue asked whether User:SkepticalRaptor should be topic-banned because of repeated, unexplained reversions of RS material amounting to vandalism. My response , which I'll echo and expand upon here, is that he might already have been banned: I have good "radar" for socks, and I think SR is likely a sock of indef-blocked User:Orangemarlin. (I just asked him about that .) The similarities between the two accounts are extensive: compare the user pages with their petty "rules", topic areas edited, reverting style and ES's, choice of words, and general hostility and ignoring WP:DR.

Anyway, sock or not, SR should have been subject to escalating blocks a long time ago. The probable reason he hasn't is that he's a "skeptic" (although he's so careless that he sometimes removes material that skeptics would like -- IIRC, OrangeMarlin did that too.) A lot of admins will tolerate all kinds of editorial bullshit if they think it holds the hordes of pseudoscientists at bay -- witness how long OrangeMarlin himself was tolerated, let alone the absurdly over-the-top ScienceApologist. But the only times the end justifies the means -- maybe -- is when there are no better means available, and in this case of course there are: there are plenty of editors able to bring scientific literacy to WP without being disruptive jihadists.

But admins have to be more willing to block disruptive editors from both sides of the equation: (1) Courteously but swiftly block tendentious editors, whether they're promoting pseudoscience or anything else, even if they're relatively new. (2) Block editors who fail to engage in WP:DR, especially the "rational discussion" part, especially if they're turning the project into a battleground. If you (1) weed out the supply of anti-science editors, then (2) there won't be any excuse for people who just want to fight to get their jollies on WP. In other words, stop handling everybody with kid gloves and don't let people edit unless they do so calmly, rationally and with social competence. --Middle 8 (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty convinced about the OM-SR link. It could just be a coincidence but there are some specifics that are just a bit too telling. SPI? SÆdon 06:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Saedon, yep, agree re evidence, and I think an SPI is a good idea. I've got some diffs and can dig up more. How can I help make this go forward? It might be better if someone else initiated it and I added some evidence, since I've never done this before. (P.S. - Although I'm generally busy IRL, I'd make time to watch an SPI pretty closely if I were involved.) --Middle 8 (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I hate filing SPIs. I like almost all other administrative functions but two things I hate are SPIs and 3RR reports. Mostly what I can offer is moral support :). It's not that difficult though, there should be a full page of instructions at WP:SPI. SÆdon 20:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, that's cool, I'm sure I can figure it out, and it does need to be done. Thanks for the support, and I'll keep you advised. --Middle 8 (talk) 08:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Sham acupuncture and "gateway woo"

Here is some material copied from Talk:Acupuncture: question: has anyone seen Ernst comment on which controls might be better than others in attempts to blind acu patients? I'm curious as to what he thinks. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Trick or Treatment made the point that when retracting needles were used, which allowed double-blinding, the evidence base for acupuncture eroded considerably.

Part of the issue is what are you controlling for? Your options are needle placement, needle penetration, depth of penetration, manipulation, diagnosis technique, disease/disorder/symptom addressed and practitioner characteristics as a minimum starting point. ...(snip)... -- WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@WLU - ...(snip)... Thanks for the heads-up re Ernst. I do need to read ToT. I am skeptical of the value of retracting needles for a couple of reasons. First, TCM acupuncture emphasizes needle manipulation, without which the treatment will be less active.* Second, acupoints are sensitive, so even the control group's nonpenetrating poke could have some effect. I think GERAC, at least sometimes, used such a design.

Good summary of the variables for which to control. It's complicated. ... my usertalk page. --Middle 8 (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

*See Cheng Dan-An, probably the single most important teaching text in the US.

Adding some more where my comments left off: Although I'm an acupuncturist, I don't fear or deny that acupuncture may be proven to be somewhat or completely ineffective (although some of it works a lot like massage does, including trigger points, so there's that: e.g., needling can release trigger points that a therapist's fingers can't reach). The thing that I hope everyone will guard against is being too hasty in any direction. It's facile to say "the controls are too complicated, so it can't be proven wrong (or let's not even try)", but it's just as facile to call it "gateway woo", assert that the prior probability is really small, and call the existing studies "well-designed" and write it off as useless.

"Gateway woo" is, of course, is an allusion to the term "gateway drug", usually connoting marijuana. But the comparison is telling: the idea that smoking pot causes users to go on to harder drugs is unsupported, and pot itself is quite safe as long as a few basic precautions are followed (e.g., avoid smoke by vaporizing, and, maybe, don't be schizophrenic). For most people, the greatest risk about smoking pot is because it's illegal, not because of anything intrinsic about it. Need I point out the obvious? Studying or trying acupuncture is not going to make someone fall for flat-earthism or climate change denial, and acupuncture is extremely safe as long as a few basic precautions are followed (no dirty needles, no impaling major organs). Probably the biggest risk of acupuncture is to use it in place of, rather than as a complement to, standard medical care. (In other words, the worst harms associated with acupuncture and pot are not intrinsic, but arise when they are put in the wrong category -- alternative vs. complementary and illegal vs. legal, respectively.)

I think it was Feynman who said that anything that contained the word "science" probably wasn't science -- e.g., "Christian science", "the science of yoga", "political science" (and, in his time, the "social sciences"). Maybe the same goes for anything called a "gateway"-something. --Middle 8 (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe acupuncture is a valid "science", provided you define what "science" is. If the process works according to the methods prescribed, it is a valid "science" which contains hypothesis, observation and experiment, but the methods may be different. Materialistic scientists think that anything that doesn't fit into their purview of material science, is just not scientific, which is absurd. I define "science" as "Knowing things exactly as they are". The "science" of God and the soul, is the most important and significant "science" if you think well.-59.95.20.182 (talk) 08:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I define science the way scientists define it, and that involves empircal evidence, not the subjectivity of religious experience. There are a lot of opinions about what God is, and to paraphrase J. R. "Bob" Dobbs, "they can't all be right, but they can sure as hell be wrong". I think "science of yoga" and "science of God" are prime examples of what Feynman was talking about. But this doesn't have to do with any article, and WP isn't social media, so... let's not extend this. I wish you well. --Middle 8 (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Indiatimes

(Note: I moved this from above to a new section -- Middle 8 (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC))

Once you know how to tackle ruthless deleters, you can keep the statements. But here in India, Indiatimes shopping is running a huge fraud racket since 2004 or 2005 till date. Pl. see your talk page. Can you help me? User:Deli nk deleted some information on the Indiatimes shopping page. Please see the history -59.95.15.38 (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand this, and I don't know what it has to do with me: I've never edited any article about Indiatimes or, AFAIK, any related article. And I'm afraid I don't have time to get involved in articles I don't already follow. I wish you good luck finding help elsewhere. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you. I think I can't use Misplaced Pages to fulfil my means, im not a vandalizer-59.95.20.182 (talk) 08:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Acupuncture and Biomedical Correlate

Review request for a review on the acupuncture page, first paragraph. See the Talk page, "Physical correlates of acupoints" section and "Physical correlates of acupoints, Part Two." I am concerned that an ethnocentric bias on the part of editors has prevented a simple edit. The editors stand by some very shaky references and will not accept references from the most prestigious universities in the world, including those in China. At issue, the current article reads inaccurately, "Scientific investigation has not found any histological or physiological correlates for traditional Chinese concepts such as qi, meridians and acupuncture points," and yet I have sourced numerous peer reviewed studies from reputable sources showing MRI brain activity, hemodynamic and oxygen pressure correlates. Please review, I think you will find the research interesting. TriumvirateProtean (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; I've been very busy and only read it just now. I will have a look, but can't get into anything very intense for another week or so. But I will have a close look. This is an important area and we need to get it right. --Middle 8 (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI

The NPOV tag was removed by a bot. I'm fine with restoring it. Instaurare (talk) 05:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Cool... I think it was a person, not a bot (cf. below), but all is well; I never assumed it was you who removed it. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

NPOV Terry McAuliffe

Per NPOVD:

This label is meant to indicate that a discussion is still going on.... In the absence of an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page, any editor may remove this tag at any time.

My quick perusal indicated the last discussion was five months ago. I see now that I was incorrect -- ongoing discussions to improve the article are in fact recently occurring. Thanks for the revert! SmallRepair (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Cool, no worries! :-) --Middle 8 (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Acupuncturist

Hi Middle 8,

As an acupuncturist, you are certainly conflicted when it comes to a skeptical view of your beliefs. As such, you should not be editing on the acupuncture or the Traditional Chinese medicine articles. I think, however, your input would be most welcome at the talk pages of those articles. I will be reporting this discussion to WP:FTN as well.

jps (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

False reading of WP:COI, not to mention unwarranted assumptions re my beliefs. --Middle 8 (talk) 01:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

If you're supporting what II said on TCM, then you are plainly in support of the pseudoscientific claim that acupuncture is better than a placebo. . jps (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

That's your opinion, unsupported by MEDRS's at acupuncture. Why are you beating the same dead horses as before? Consensus didn't support your claims then either. --Middle 8 (talk) 02:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hiding your poor sourcing and cherry-picking of third-rate articles as "MEDRS" is just more evidence of your conflicted position. And, additionally, consensus among alt-med supporters is not what consensus was intended to mean, and I think you should know that after seeing what happened to the homeopaths and the chiropractors here. The fact is that the horse is not "dead". The horse is just very sick and in need of being put down. jps (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

How is Vickers ('12) (which you want to remove from the article body) a poor MEDRS, especially compared to Sampson (at Quackwatch.org, '05) and McCarthy's editorial in The Lancet ('05 also), which you want to cite in the lede?

Your take on consensus sounds like a No True Scotsman fallacy given the diversity of editors at acupuncture, something you'd know if you read Talk before doing quick and dirty edits to the lede. Your take on pseudoscience generally sounds like that fallacy... I mean, the National Health Service is pseudoscientific with their statement on acu? Because some skeptical bloggers and ToT disagree?

I actually agree that it's possible that acu will -- despite the blinding issues -- eventually be recognized by sci consensus to be all or nearly all placebo. But your attempts to depict the literature as such are premature. If you were right you wouldn't have to prevaricate about sources (and editors) that disagree. --Middle 8 (talk) 04:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Your personal beliefs about acupuncture are really not at issue here. You may be promoting your own bias without even realizing it, after all. The problem is that you are conflicted and are using a source which has been roundly impeached with no effective rejoinder. Vickers' interpretation is off and parroting that interpretation is irresponsible for Misplaced Pages. Attempting to claim that somehow we should be blind to these matters and give a kind of equal validity to bad sources as well as good ones is the heart of the issue and why I think you shouldn't be acting in mainspace especially as all your edits fall firmly on one side of this problem and you appear rather plainly to be promoting results that typically those in your profession trumpet even while they are rather poorly considered. jps (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Why all this drama simply over WP:WEIGHT? Nobody's claiming that we shouldn't give due weight to sources, or otherwise abandon NPOV. Well, except for you, since you seem to be saying that giving due weight to a peer-reviewed meta-analysis of RCT's, like Vickers, means ignoring it because of Ernst and science bloggers disagreeing with it. You keep asserting Vickers is abysmal, but based on what? So far, you barely have the sources to balance it, let alone trash it. You know very well that blogs aren't acceptable on WP (unless they're quoting a published expert like Ernst, and even then, expert opinion on a blog goes only so far). So find better sources; otherwise, simply propose wording on talk that fits what we have, and give the drama a rest. (Unfortunately, when you can't find better sources, your tendency is to harass the editors who point out that fact -- but I think that's pretty transparent.) --Middle 8 (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The sources are there, we just need to get rid of the shoddy interpretations and organizations being promoted by you. It's not possible to do this when you revert in articlespace () and canvass others to come join your righteous crusade to protect the slanted articles in Misplaced Pages that promote your profession . jps (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Enough with the silly, disruptive attack-drama. As if, with two mainspace edits to acu in the last six months (prior to which I don't think I even knew about the Vickers ref for which you say I'm POV-pushing) I am the guy promoting teh awful sources (and canards like: "systematic reviews are stronger sources than expert opinion"). The mainspace diff you cite still hasn't gotten a response from you on Talk:Acu regarding the inadequacy of Sampson/Lancet/ToT as rebuttals to NHS; meanwhile you've edit-warred and disrupted the talk page. Your "righteous crusade" characterization of my note to Mallexicon is more silly hyperbole and WP:KETTLE (your history here being little short of a personal jihad). And you're just playing fast and loose with the truth by generalizing off one diff without looking deeper. Try doing something constructive: go to Talk:Acupuncture and propose a sensible edit that sticks close to sources.

There is one other thing. AFAIK, you haven't explained the circumstances of your return to the WP community. You left under siteban a year or two ago amidst much drama. What happened? Did the siteban run out or did someone lift it, and if so, who? Given how profoundly you disrupted WP last time, not to mention your evident lack of course change, you owe us an explanation. --Middle 8 (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Stay out of article space and we won't have a problem with your conflict of interest. It's that simple. I'll even tolerate a little bit of canvassing. Why not? jps (talk) 18:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

What is this, Breaking Bad, "stay out of my territory"? Sorry, I'll be in article space even if you're feeling OWN-y. Or to put it as you would: "now you are making shocking claims of ownership, among the worst I've ever seen! It's appalling." Teh Dramaz! Speaking of, what was the deal with your ban/return?

In all seriousness, you wasted countless hours of the community's time with your ever-escalating disruption and should explain yourself. Why should you be trusted now? In ANY WP space? Really. What changed? What did you learn? How are you putting into practice what you learned. We have every right to know this stuff in light of your -- truly and no kidding -- appalling conduct. --Middle 8 (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess I don't have anything more to say to you. It's all rhetorical flourish now with no content. You clearly don't want to try to put in place a conversation where we can come to understand each other, so what's the point of continuing? This is absolutely toxic. You can go do your own research into my story if you'd like. It's all in the archives. There's even a WP page about this: WP:RTA. jps (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The response by Vickers

Hi Middle 8. QuackGuru interpreted your remark to mean that you oppose citing Vickers's response to Ernst in the article. Is that accurate? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 11:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I do support citing Vickers' response to Ernst; sounds like QG misunderstood my comment. thanks, Middle 8 (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Acupuncture

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Misplaced Pages this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. QuackGuru (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Humanist Wikipedians