| Revision as of 05:42, 14 July 2007 editOrangemarlin (talk | contribs)30,771 edits →Herpes zoster - comments from an uninvolved admin.: Amusing.← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:06, 16 July 2007 edit undoJagra (talk | contribs)1,708 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
| :::I don't confuse Homeopathy with Herbalism. I just think they are both pseudoscience, and therefore not appropriate to medical articles. Once again, I would suggest you refrain from ]. And medicine is a science, not based on folklore, rumor, eastern philosophy or anything else but science. Those botanicals that now contribute to standard medical practice have been analyzed for safety and efficacy in a double-blind clinical trial, not on a GNC sales person. And I would suggest you read NPOV carefully. It does not state that all views rate equal time in an article, it says verifiable (with acceptable sources) statements carry much more weight than those that aren't verified. ] 05:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | :::I don't confuse Homeopathy with Herbalism. I just think they are both pseudoscience, and therefore not appropriate to medical articles. Once again, I would suggest you refrain from ]. And medicine is a science, not based on folklore, rumor, eastern philosophy or anything else but science. Those botanicals that now contribute to standard medical practice have been analyzed for safety and efficacy in a double-blind clinical trial, not on a GNC sales person. And I would suggest you read NPOV carefully. It does not state that all views rate equal time in an article, it says verifiable (with acceptable sources) statements carry much more weight than those that aren't verified. ] 05:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ==SCIENCE in MEDICINE== | |||
| Hi Kathryn, I have been busy at the end of the financial year, so was unable to respond sooner. | |||
| I keep reading that Shingles is a Medical article, when it is really a medical science one, just look at the references! whats the difference? Most uninformed individuals believe that science is the hand-maiden of medicine, but in fact she is but a poor cousin, and it is only in relatively recent times that practitioners have been cajolled into ] guidelines, and then usually by their insurers. The difficulty for practitioners is that in many countries a degree to practice medicine does not qualify them as medical scientists. Many of the techniques used in EBM are in fact science, engineering and mathematics tools. As many medical degrees no longer have mathematics as a core subject, for this reason practitioneers are limited in both their understanding of the science and its proper application. Indeed being a medicical practitioner limits the peer reveiwed journals they can publish in, to those of their true peers. A real scientist both recognises the value of other science disciplines, and indeed the multidisciplinary approach to complex problems. Claiming that someone “knows more about medicine than you'll ever know”( see above) does not in any sense of the language qualify them as an expert in medical science, or give them any authority to limit anothers work. Particually coming from a ‘linguist’ pretending to be able to understand and validate medical science edits! Their real claim to fame is as ‘Administators” in Wiki. keep that perspective, mostly they are technocrats, not scientists like you, and probably can’t understand much of the science. | |||
| As to the gold standard of double blind placebo controlled trials, others claim this is a pharmaceutical mantra, see ] <sup>(talk)</sup> and it produces nonsense if the mathematics are applied incorrectly. I am reminded of a course given by professor David Eddy and reported in an editorial of the BMJ volume 303. He was a surgeon who gave up practice because he could not support scientifically his proceedures and becaame a professor of mathematics. His work led to the conclusion that only 15% of medical interventions then were supported by solid scientific evidence, because only 1% of the articles in medical journals were sound scientifically. His students later reveiwed every medical science article in the vaunted respected peer reveiwed medical journals, for a full year, and found only 30% reached the correct scientific conclusion about their own work, and not always for the right analysis? In polite medical science circles, medical research funded by pharmaceutical companies is considered prima-facia biased, unless proven otherwise. So it seems medicine is anything else but science! So just what weight should we give to so called Verifiable scources? Little wonder then that more than 50% of medical visits are to alternative practitioners, they could probably claim similar verifiable relevance. I don’t want this to give the wrong impression that I am against Western medicine, rather that I am not naïve enough to support its pretensions, or any other alternative, for that matter, without qualification. | |||
| The accuser likes to make sweeping generalisations, that no doubt impress some, but my review of his references found , consumer articles without primary references (not V), out of date opinion reveiws (not RS), and very definate POV, have a read sometime, and post a note there if you as a scientist agree. As to accusations of Fringe Science, I will let the above speak for just what is “fringe”. My Jungian antenna tells me that all is not what it pretends to be.] 02:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:06, 16 July 2007
References
To do what you want to do see WP:CITE. If you need specific help, or if you would like me to do it for you, feel free to contact me on my talk page. --Random 03:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. I misunderstood what you meant. To make a references list in the bottom of an article add the following {{reflist}} to a reference section. The wikipedian who originally answered that question already did it for you. --Random 14:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I saw your question on the help desk. Here's the quote from Misplaced Pages's guidelines: 11 This wikipedia guideline on editing style states
English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it. VK35 17:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
In response to your message, I was merely citing the wikipedia policy. If you carefully consider what you are doing and genuinely believe that you are doing the best and generally accepted action, then you are probably ok. VK35 16:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Herpes zoster - comments from an uninvolved admin.
First, I strongly suggest you see WP:NPOV's undue weight clause and take a look also at WP:RS and WP:V. Second, slow revert wars are unacceptable. JoshuaZ 14:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I fully agree, have read your points and learnt, check the pot not just the kettle, as I have not reverted any edit at this time, slow war accussations are out of order.Jagra 05:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't just show up at an article and revert back to a previous version as you did at H. zoster. Especially do no not do so when there is was a prior consensus not to have your edits and there was concern about NPOV and RS. Such behavior is time consuming and disruptive. JoshuaZ 02:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- The question of RS, V and NPov has been dealt with in an agreed Break so that Discussion might ensure, The accussations were not substantiated, quite the reverse in fact, check for yourself. Other than that I am not aware of the consensus you mention? The other recent allegations I have directed to your talk for redress as a concerning pattern seems to be emerging!Jagra
Hi Jagra,
I decided to wait the fish out while I compiled more references. And I might well complain of vandalism if he continues to revert them. I find the ignorance and vehemence of his charges pretty appalling- if he doesn't understand the information then it is invalid. What are these consensuses that people here are citing? KSVaughan2 16:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- The "fish" knows more about medicine than you'll ever know. Having looked over his reversions of Jagra, I find them to be valid. Keep in mind that others have reverted those edits as well. If you are so unaware of what "consensus" is, perhaps you might want to do some research on WP policies. •Jim62sch• 17:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- He probably knows more about _Pharmaceutical_ medicine than I but he certainly doesn't come close to what I know about _Botanical_ medicine. Confusing botanical medicine with homeopathy is a rather significant hole in his medical education- akin to not knowing the difference between orthopedic medicine and neurology. It isn't his area of expertise. We don't revert his pharmaceutical information, why should he revert information within our area of expertise? Hardly Npov! KSVaughan2 22:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't confuse Homeopathy with Herbalism. I just think they are both pseudoscience, and therefore not appropriate to medical articles. Once again, I would suggest you refrain from personal attacks. And medicine is a science, not based on folklore, rumor, eastern philosophy or anything else but science. Those botanicals that now contribute to standard medical practice have been analyzed for safety and efficacy in a double-blind clinical trial, not on a GNC sales person. And I would suggest you read NPOV carefully. It does not state that all views rate equal time in an article, it says verifiable (with acceptable sources) statements carry much more weight than those that aren't verified. Orangemarlin 05:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
SCIENCE in MEDICINE
Hi Kathryn, I have been busy at the end of the financial year, so was unable to respond sooner. I keep reading that Shingles is a Medical article, when it is really a medical science one, just look at the references! whats the difference? Most uninformed individuals believe that science is the hand-maiden of medicine, but in fact she is but a poor cousin, and it is only in relatively recent times that practitioners have been cajolled into Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines, and then usually by their insurers. The difficulty for practitioners is that in many countries a degree to practice medicine does not qualify them as medical scientists. Many of the techniques used in EBM are in fact science, engineering and mathematics tools. As many medical degrees no longer have mathematics as a core subject, for this reason practitioneers are limited in both their understanding of the science and its proper application. Indeed being a medicical practitioner limits the peer reveiwed journals they can publish in, to those of their true peers. A real scientist both recognises the value of other science disciplines, and indeed the multidisciplinary approach to complex problems. Claiming that someone “knows more about medicine than you'll ever know”( see above) does not in any sense of the language qualify them as an expert in medical science, or give them any authority to limit anothers work. Particually coming from a ‘linguist’ pretending to be able to understand and validate medical science edits! Their real claim to fame is as ‘Administators” in Wiki. keep that perspective, mostly they are technocrats, not scientists like you, and probably can’t understand much of the science.
As to the gold standard of double blind placebo controlled trials, others claim this is a pharmaceutical mantra, see Evidence-Based Medicine and it produces nonsense if the mathematics are applied incorrectly. I am reminded of a course given by professor David Eddy and reported in an editorial of the BMJ volume 303. He was a surgeon who gave up practice because he could not support scientifically his proceedures and becaame a professor of mathematics. His work led to the conclusion that only 15% of medical interventions then were supported by solid scientific evidence, because only 1% of the articles in medical journals were sound scientifically. His students later reveiwed every medical science article in the vaunted respected peer reveiwed medical journals, for a full year, and found only 30% reached the correct scientific conclusion about their own work, and not always for the right analysis? In polite medical science circles, medical research funded by pharmaceutical companies is considered prima-facia biased, unless proven otherwise. So it seems medicine is anything else but science! So just what weight should we give to so called Verifiable scources? Little wonder then that more than 50% of medical visits are to alternative practitioners, they could probably claim similar verifiable relevance. I don’t want this to give the wrong impression that I am against Western medicine, rather that I am not naïve enough to support its pretensions, or any other alternative, for that matter, without qualification.
The accuser likes to make sweeping generalisations, that no doubt impress some, but my review of his references found , consumer articles without primary references (not V), out of date opinion reveiws (not RS), and very definate POV, have a read sometime, and post a note there if you as a scientist agree. As to accusations of Fringe Science, I will let the above speak for just what is “fringe”. My Jungian antenna tells me that all is not what it pretends to be.Jagra 02:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)