Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:34, 30 March 2018

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2
• /Archive 3
• /Archive 4

Ciprofloxacin

Hello, firstly I must apologise as I am new to Misplaced Pages and don’t really know what I’m doing.

But basically I am just trying to get updated safety information onto the Ciprofloxacin page. The information is from the FDA 2016 warning. But it keeps getting edited out. I would have thought this was reliable information that belongs on the page?

As I say. I don’t really know what I’m doing and not really sure how to reference things properly. Can you help? Wiki woms (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Also I have probably come across like I am trying to argue with Doc James. This is not the case, I’m just getting frustrated with it

I’m sure he has good intentions, but he just seems to dismiss the recent FDA warnings Wiki woms (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The best help I can give you is to point you in the direction of the following pages: WP:MEDRS, WP:RS

To reference things properly, here are the templates: Template:Cite_web, Template:Cite_journal and Template:Cite_book and you place the templates between <ref> and </ref>

I think Doc James felt the information was being repeated unnecessarily in multiple sections of the article. Usually the same information should be mentioned once in the article body and if it is important, then briefly mentioned in the summary section at the beginning of an article. Does this help? There is also a tool where you can put in, for example, the ID of a book or medical paper and the tool autogenerates the reference template all filled out for you - it can make editing much easier. I think your edits are good, especially considering you are a newcomer to Misplaced Pages and it is good to see an enthusiastic newcomer to Misplaced Pages. I will try and help you but I just do not have a huge amount of time at the moment.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Altering comments

Please do not alter your Talk page contributions after they have been responded to; it makes an already confusing thread even worse. See WP:REDACT. Alexbrn (talk) 09:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, okay, sorry about that.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Faith healing RFC

Please be mindful of WP:TPNO, especially in discussions about pseudoscience. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• While I believe that if Misplaced Pages was written with your POV, it would be a better place. Same goes for Kingofaces43. Still I am finding your comments to be troubling. Why you posted this comment? Such comments are described as civil POV pushing, and you are posting false accusations of threats and harassment and such comments distracts from the content dispute and leads people to write a complaint about you or at least prefer hostility against you. Kingofaces43 was just saying something that you have been already told by one more editor. Most editors supported the RfC because they believe in continuing the standards, if you really believe that we need to limit our content addition with what most of the sources prefer then we will require a change in policy. Right now it is dubious and depends upon how strong the argument has been made or the flaws with the information itself, even if it has been supported by handful of reliable sources. Maybe you should really take some time to analyze the most important parts of your comments and try thinking of some other way to get this label (pseudoscience) removed not only from this but also other articles. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

No, Kingsofaces kept warning me of discretionary sanctions (which implies the threat of an ArbCom block) being in place when the consensus was that they cannot be in place until the RFC result has concluded with a specific result. Anyway, water under the bridge. I don't want the pseudoscience label removed from other articles, you are casting aspirations.

Having studied the arguments and how people have voted, I believe the way forward is to summarise what the sources say, some say pseudoscience, others say only certain forms of faith healing is pseudoscience. This can be resolved by following NPOV. We all want the dangerous charlatan faith healers who prey on the weak with fraud and deception and the equally dangerous extremist Christian quacks who directly or indirectly encourage people to reject or delay mainstream medical care to be heavily criticised in the article. I don't think there is one person on that article that disagrees. And most, I speculate, would accept a compromise of labelling, per sources, that such people or those who do present a scientific veneer to their faith healing are pseudoscientific.

The problem is labelling traditional praying, whilst embracing mainstream science and medical care, for a sick relative as pseudoscience when there are two or perhaps three sources that state that not all forms of faith healing is pseudoscience. We can't ignore sources! Most dictionary sources and our own article describe faith healing as any prayer for healing, which means we are stating about a billion people's religious belief is pseudoscience. We just don't have enough clear cut sourcing to say that. The sourcing that says pseudoscience seems to describe dangerous quack anti-science faith healing and not the dictionary definition of tradition prayer for healing type faith healing. I just want people to be sensible and follow NPOV in this dispute and not abuse what sources say and go way beyond the sources.

I do not want pseudoscience description to be withheld from the article because that would be going against what many editors want. Even several of the support votes say follow the sources, etc., which would include a few sources that say not all forms of faith healing is pseudoscience. I am not the big POV pusher you think I am. If people were saying let's summarise the sources fairly and acknowledge the controversy, I wouldn't be doing all the posting that I have been doing.

One of your sources actually says that faith healing is a paranormal belief that is based on fraud and deception but separates it from pseudoscience which implies to me it is saying it is not a pseudoscience but rather fraudulent, but you misrepresented your source, I believe in good faith. Obviously it is still very negative description of faith healing, but it just annoys me when things are misrepresented. Read the paragraph carefully, please. If we can discuss and accept what sources say, we can find a solution that makes everyone happy.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Literaturegeek, you seem rather confused about the whole situation. First, the DS are in effect, and the RfC has no bearing on whether that is the case or not. The current WP:CONSENSUS even at the talk page is that they are in effect because even though multiple editors don't like that, the conversation and subject material is still about pseudoscience. The reason why you were alerted to the DS was badgering editors on the talk page, and I reminded you about the DS again because of blugeoning behavior. As Raymond pointed out above, the claims of harassment, etc. are highly inappropriate and WP:ASPERSIONS, and I do suggest striking that comment at the RfC.

Behavior issues mixed with content get a bit trickier to deal with, but that's why the pseudoscience/fringe topic went to ArbCom. It's extremely common to have people use special pleading arguments that something isn't pseudoscience/fringe (pseudoskepticism, contrarianism, etc.) that you have been furthering in addition to having behavior issues like I mentioned above. It doesn't matter that you're fine with direct fraud cases being pseudoscience when you're actively portraying other sourced pseudoscientific areas as not. You are getting on thinner and thinner ice with your behavior, so the DS reminders so far have been to remind you that you are expected to be on better behavior in this topic. There should be nothing offensive about that. I usually just assume good-faith and assume people just aren't familiar with pseudoscience when they stumble over things like you have, but you've reached the point awhile ago that you really need to slow down. You've been missing key details as well as warnings from other editors to the point you're misrepresenting comments from others.

I assume you haven't realized it yet, but your actions so far have more or less matched the stereotypical editor that enters into fringe topics only to get sanctioned for things like you've exactly been doing. The warnings so far have been to prevent that, so please slow down and reflect on that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Just a note since I'm not sure how familiar you are with DS alerts based on previous conversations. You are free to delete the notice once notified as you did, but "awareness" does not expire until 12 months after regardless of removal. I do suggest reading that link for what alerts are actually intended to do. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Kingofaces, you are right that I have posted too much and need to slow down on my comments, and I regret that anyone, including you, is offended by me. I do not come onto Misplaced Pages to offend people. It is not a typical fringe topic because there is a split in the views of Misplaced Pages community and what the sources say. Usually I am arguing against FRINGE theories, search my username on the fringe noticeboard. I am not pleading or advocating on a personal level, because I don't even practice faith healing, I embrace mainstream medical care. I am just hoping for an NPOV summary of the available sources. Everybody disagreed with you and the consensus was firmly against your view that discretionary sanctions are in effect, and it was an administrator who voiced an opinion that you were abusing this process by threatening me, which was why I suggested you were harassing me by threatening me. Maybe they are all wrong, one admin did agree with you that DS might apply and I should err on the side of caution. Maybe I should again heed that advice and like you say, slow down. However, you reject any published opinion that only certain forms of faith healing are pseudoscience, so for you to come here and accuse me of POV pushing is just not fair, you should read WP:KETTLE. Yes, I know how it works, I am not a newbie... Perhaps a flaw is I am attracted to the controversial articles and the heated debates, most recently the RfC on medical videos on WP:MED because they are more challenging and enjoyable to partake in. Other editors obviously don't enjoy such debates and don't like disagreements, debates and mild drama.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

As for striking, you have tried to belittle me by accusing me of being a fringe pseudoscience pusher even though there are sources that agree that not all forms are pseudoscience. So for striking, well you will have to agree to strike some of the stuff you have fired my way too. Some of your criticisms of my actions I accept and have taken on board, but others are just not fair or even acceptable. I bet you if I shared the same POV as you you would have a different attitude and would be behaving differently towards me. I do wonder how much of this is about you just don't like my advocating for NPOV of the differences of opinions amongst sources. If you want to resolve our difference, I am open to that.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

"It doesn't matter that you're fine with direct fraud cases being pseudoscience when you're actively portraying other sourced pseudoscientific areas as not." I am okay with sourcing being used, per NPOV, that states faith healing is a pseudoscience, so long as other sourcing is incorporated that suggests that this is not the case and that only certain forms of faith healing is pseudoscience. You are assuming that I am wanting to bludgeon my way over majority opinion of the RfC when I simply am not. Maybe we both view each other as wanting to cherrypicking sources? I want to have a discussion, either apply MEDRS restrict ourselves to the recent 2013 source or else if we use old sources, to do so neutrally which includes differing opinions amongst those sources.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed text for faith healing article

I am a bit frustrated being accused of POV pushing, so I am instead posting this to clarify where my real thoughts are at this point. Kingofaces43 made a sensible argument that MEDRS should not apply, at least not strictly, because faith healing is a fringe topic. Therefore, older sources should be used. Below is what I regard as NPOV summary of the available sources. I don't for the life of me see how the below text could be as "special pleading" for pseudoscience. It is special pleading for WP:NPOV so less of the insults or casting asperations please and consider the below and get back to collaborative editing. I do not believe the below text will be perfectly acceptable to either side of the debate but those who favour NPOV it should be:

Faith healing is a scientifically unproven treatment and cures attributed to it are considered to be scientifically suspect; explanations such as if it can be proven that a person was sick and has been cured in the first instance or whether spontaneous remission has occurred may offer better explanations. There are, in fact, many examples of faith healing fraud and deception. Alleged cures from faith healing are considered to be paranormal phenomena, however, the religious beliefs and practices associated with faith healing are not usually considered to be pseudoscientific because they do not usually have any pretensions of science. Another expert stated that only certain forms of faith healing are pseudoscience, e.g., Christian Science, voodoo and Spiritualism. Other authors have asserted faith healing, in general, is a clear cut form of pseudoscience. Another author described faith healing as a form of paranormal belief that is based on fraud and deception. Faith healing has been described as probably the most dangerous type of pseudoscience because it can cause people to reject mainstream medical care with increased pain and suffering and an earlier death real potential consequences.

1. Martin, Michael (1994). "Pseudoscience, the Paranormal, and Science Education" (PDF). Science & Education. 3. Kluwer Academic Publishers: 357–371. Retrieved 30 March 2018.
2. Leonard,, Bill; Crainshaw, Jill Y. (2013). Encyclopedia of Religious Controversies in the United States: A - L., (2nd ed.). United States of America: ABC-CLIO LLC. p. 625. ISBN 978-1-59884-867-0. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |Volume= ignored (|volume= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
3. Zerbe, Michael J. (28 February 2007). Composition and the Rhetoric of Science: Engaging the Dominant Discourse. Southern Illinois University. p. 86. ISBN 978-0809327409.
4. Pitt, Joseph C.; Pera, Marcello (6 December 2012). Rational Changes in Science: Essays on Scientific Reasoning. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 96. ISBN 978-9401081818.
5. Gilbert, John (2006). Science Education: Major Themes in Education. Routledge. p. 16. ISBN 978-0415342261. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |Volume= ignored (|volume= suggested) (help)
6. Cogan, Robert (28 March 1998). Critical Thinking: Step by Step. University Press of America. p. 217. ISBN 978-0761810674.

Clarification of wording of Barbara's topic ban

Sandstein has closed the User:Barbara (WVS) ANI discussion with a topic ban worded "is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from medical articles". Following discussion with Sandstein regarding the scope of that topic ban (User_talk:Sandstein#What_the_topic_ban_covers), it is felt that further wording is required. Therefore it is proposed that the wording of the topic ban is amended to read:

"By consensus of the community, Barbara (WVS) (talk · contribs), also editing as Bfpage (talk · contribs), is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed, and is also banned from interacting with Flyer22 (talk · contribs) (WP:IBAN)."

As you took place in the discussion, please visit Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_clarification_of_scope_of_topic_ban to give your views. SilkTork (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

I don't want you to have to go digging to look for this, so ...

Okay, fair enough. Tic disorders is not an area that I have researched in detail so I never followed those DSM changes. I obviously spoke out of turn and my knowledge area. My gut did warn me about this, I ignored my gut. It does seem you are right about the suffer bit. I apologise.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Much appreciated, Literturegeek, and thank you from the bottom of my heart. Something similar was said the first time I sought help as a newbie for the TS article, and I realized there was no one on Misplaced Pages who could help me improve a dismal article, so I embarked alone. Twelve years later, that memory still pushes buttons, so I apologize for reacting so strongly and inappropriately to your post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks Sandy, I replied here in this diff.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I hope I don't use those words too often in here :) Thanks again, and sorry again :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)