Misplaced Pages

User talk:Gleng: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:44, 22 September 2006 editDematt (talk | contribs)5,093 edits You're Invited← Previous edit Revision as of 04:23, 25 September 2006 edit undoSteth (talk | contribs)673 edits Thanks for the endorsementNext edit →
Line 179: Line 179:


Come on over - ]--] 23:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Come on over - ]--] 23:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


== Thanks ==

Just noticed your endorsement on my Barnstar. I appreciate your honesty. ] 04:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:23, 25 September 2006

I had already read the article on-line, and now having received my copy a couple days ago, have read the paper edition. I do hope we get more chiropractors as editors. I do fear that if they are newcomers to Wikpedia, some of them may see this as an opportunity to use the article as a frontpage advertisement for chiropractic, which isn't the purpose of the article or Misplaced Pages. I'm basically inclusionist by nature, and think the article should include coverage (short!) of all major and minor POV. It should be done in such a way that readers without any knowledge of the subject will get presented with basic knowledge about chiropractic, including both sides of the controversies, and still be left to make up their own minds. Editorializing mustn't "decide for them." I have written some of my POV on NPOV. I'd appreciate your comments -- Fyslee 18:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
More from Dynamic Chiropractic:
Dr. Whalen's ad hominem remark characterizing the Council on Chiropractic Practice (CCP) guidelines as "touted by a small fringe group" is disingenuous. According to How Chiropractors Think and Practice: The Survey of North American Chiropractors, published in 2003 by the Institute for Social Research at Ohio Northern University, "For all practical purposes, there is no debate on the vertebral subluxation complex. Nearly 90% want to retain the VSC as a term. Similarly, almost 90% do not want the adjustment limited to musculoskeletal conditions. The profession – as a whole – presents a united front regarding the subluxation and the adjustment."2 Ninety percent of the profession can hardly be considered a "small fringe group." (my emphasis - Fyslee)
If there is a fringe group within the profession, it composed of the 10 percent who renounce the subluxation and wish to limit chiropractic care to persons presenting with musculoskeletal symptoms.
This should put to rest the idea that there is no controversy in the profession, or that those who believe in VS are a small fringe group. The majority of chiros do believe in VS, and that fact needs to be made clear in the article. -- Fyslee 18:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey Gleng! It was so good to hear from you today. I stopped by your site User:Gleng/chiropractic and glad to see your working! I'm leaving the science to you. I trust you can seperate the fluff from the stuff:) You mentioned that you saw some pictures and drawings that might go well on the Chiro page. If you point me in right directions, I'll work on getting them. Did you see the DD Palmer picture? I think your right, this could end up being a great article. Can't wait to see how it ends.--Dematt 01:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Gleng! It was so good to hear from you! Things got dicey for awhile without you. It will be nice to have you back. Don't feel bad though, I've been a little slow with the history, too, but we do have to make a living:) I'll be looking for you.--Dematt 01:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)!!!! Hey, WOW, I just saw you gave me a star! Thanks, you know I needed that. We all need a pat on the back every once in awhile.. I think we all deserve one! Thanks again--Dematt 01:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC) 


User:Gleng/chiropractic

ECT work

Thank you for some terrific work on the ECT page. That's all. Nmg20 22:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


How does this look to you

Gleng, do you think this article is a credible source? Can chiropractic maim and kill?


I question it on several points: (1) RS, and (2) accuracy.
It appears to be a short summation of news reports from the media, with blended criticisms of the various research reports, and of the newspaper article(s) itself. It is still a source of references that could be looked up.
It would be much better to find better sources and deal with each research report by itself.
It is also somewhat inaccurate and misleading:
"...spine manipulation by chiropractor ..."
While this is true, it is also misleading. The potential for injury is related primarily to the treatment itself, and only secondarily to chiropractors, since other practitioners can also cause injury when using the method. It is mostly relevant to chiropractors, since it is them that provide 90%(?) of spinal manipulations and 98%(?) of upper cervical manipulations. If MDs and PTs used the method in the same way and frequency, their patients would suffer the same (rare) risk, and MDs and PTs would be implicated in more cases.
Thus, (1) because of the severity of injuries, and (2) regardless of the practitioner, and (3) in spite of the rarity of cases, the use of the method deserves intense investigation and extreme caution. This is especially true since (1) other and safer methods can be used, and since there is generally (2) no excuse for manipulating the cervical spine.
See:
Another one of the same quality and from the same source:
All in all, this subject is so controversial and important that it should be an article by itself, dealing with the method and all professions who use it, not just chiropractors. -- Fyslee 10:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I didn't look at the content but just assessed it as a source. Even the very best reviews are subject to criticism and may contain errors of fact, and I don't think we can get into our own criticisms as this is OR however well founded, but have to abide by verifiability not truth - this is a two edged sword but something we can all live with, ours is not to judge merely to report. So the issue is not content but merely the quality of the source I think. As a source it can be criticised as being a simplified summary for public consumption of a complex issue, and there may be errors of oversimplification. On the other hand it is published on an intentionally authoratative site for these purposes, and apparently prepared by well qualified experts who pursue a rigorous academic approach, and the account seems well referenced and balanced. For WP as a public encyclopedia it seems to me that such sites are particularly valuable - and in other articles we use very similarly intentioned sites extensively (I'm thinking of the evolution/natural selection domain). I'm really trying to keep away from the issue of content, when Dematt flagged this I recognised that his query might come from either side of the argument based on the title, and I'm grateful that he didn't imply that he was seeking either endorsement or repudiation. I see the case for referring to the academic reviews of which this is a summary of course; my view for what it's worth is that within the article on chiropractic, as a gateway to the field, this is an excellent source, and I do see particular virtue in digests prepared in this way for public understanding, (i.e. where they have undisputed authority); I also agree that a separate article on the controversy over safety that reports academic investigation carefully would be a worthy addition, and would solve the problem with a link from the main article (see article on... for detailed account of investigations of safety and dissenting opinions). :)Gleng 10:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Chiro external links

Here are some more good links, often with extensive lists of references to more sources (unalphabetized):

Internal criticism:


External criticism:

-- Fyslee 13:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll look through them when I get a spare momentGleng 13:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused!

Your edit here has really got me confused:

Mccready accuses me of anti-science here. So let me spell this out very clearly. The statement as made in the lead at present is “Chiropractic's premise is that spinal joint misalignments, which chiropractors call vertebral subluxations, can interfere with the nervous system and result in diminished health.” This seems an unobjectionable and wholly accurate statement. However if Mccready wants a V RS for it then can someone please like to point him to any statement of chiropractic philosophy and beliefs. The statement does not assert that the premise is in fact true. However, the statement as posed is not only true it is tautologically true. Reduce the sentence by eliminating subsidiary clauses and it becomes: “spinal joint misalignments can interfere with the nervous system and result in diminished health.” As it happens, although the truth of this is not asserted, it is obviously true. This statement can be criticised, as it has been (and see ongoing discussion), on the grounds that in fact chiropractors believe more than this, and believe that subluxations are the cause of many diseases. In some of these additional claims chiropractic indeed is in dispute with many in conventional medicine. However, this is not what the sentence says or appears to say at present.Gleng 16:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

In that statement I have highlighted the problematic part:

"The statement does not assert that the premise is in fact true. However, the statement as posed is not only true it is tautologically true."

So far so good....but:

"Reduce the sentence by eliminating subsidiary clauses and it becomes: “spinal joint misalignments can interfere with the nervous system and result in diminished health.”
As it happens, although the truth of this is not asserted, it is obviously true."

This last part is what blows me away. Do you really mean that? Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here. Please help me understand this. It sounds like you are supporting the VS claims. -- Fyslee 19:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly not supporting the VS claims, in fact I'm just pointing out the weakness of the statement; obviously a spinal misalignment will cause symptoms; don't see how you could call it a misalignment otherwise. I.e. If there is nerve compression through misalignment, and that's my understanding of a misalignment, then clearly it will cause symtoms. This much seems uncontroversial. Whether such misalignments are a common cause of disease and especially of diseases not obviously related to the spine is clearly controversial, and of this I'm skeptical as you'd expect. However, the statement as phrased, as I had previously discussed on the Talk page, is uncontroversial but is essentially empty, and I had proposed modifying it to give it content. But as a bland statement I didn't consider it particularly objectionable per se.
The sentence as phrased intoduces the term VS as purely a definition of spinal misalignment, so omitting it doesn't change the meaning.
I objected to Mccready's edit as it introduced an assertion with content but no V RS to counterpoint a rather bland and neutral statement. It seemed inappropriate Gleng 19:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Gleng was saying that sentence that starts with "Chiropractic's premise states that spinal joint misalignment causes nerve interference and diminished health." - is a perfectly unobjectionable sentence. -- Dematt 21:32, 11 September 2006

PS

I admire your dignity and sense of honor. I hope you understand that duty usurps them all;) You feel the same way about science as I chiropractic. It is something you know and it is dear to you. Don't let someone else screw it up. Thought you should see this. --Dematt 00:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

New Chiro stuff

Gleng, I found and added some stuff that I know was important to you. Also (by shear coincidence) look who joined us Dr.Rick.

Misplaced Pages:Expert_Retention

Have a look here: Misplaced Pages:Expert_Retention. I send you an e-mail.-- Kim van der Linde 14:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggesting an one month community ban for Mccready on all pseudoscience articles

I'm suggesting a one month community ban of Mccready from all pseudoscience articles. He could edit the talk pages but not the article. Please make your thoughts known on AN/I. FloNight 16:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Pseudoscience

I've just read your post. A group of Wikipedians are developing a policy proposal to deal with the kind of problem that you describe. Perhaps you would like to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages Talk:Tendentious editors. I'd value your input. Durova 17:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. I hope we get an effective proposal passed and that you continue contributing to Misplaced Pages. As with any emerging project, things aren't perfect here, but the site could certainly benefit from your expertise. Respectfully, Durova 16:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
A Wikibreak can be a good thing. I'm interested in this proposal because my first editing experience was a trial by fire. My formal education is in history and writing and I was horrified to discover that one Wikipedian had been editing Joan of Arc into compliance with his unpublished family tree for a solid year, despite many points on which it contradicted mainstream sources. Several other editors had quit in frustration. Now the page is a featured article, but no one who knows a subject should have to endure what I went through. I've summarized my hard-earned experience in an essay: Misplaced Pages:Light one candle. Regards, Durova 16:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Orthomolecular

Gleng, I have had a long month of patience on the Orthomed, Orthomol. psych, megavitamin & Pauling articles and several editors' vexatious "pseudosci" abuse which has actually alienated other independent skeptics. One key structural part of the ongoing problem is the "authoritative"/"reliable" source of Qu*ckW*tch, which can be shown to have manifold, purposeful, serious defects on many pages. Over 30+ yrs, I have reversed polarity & have come to regard QW as an unscientific, vexatious attack site, at least with regard to therapeutic nutrition. I would appreciate your comments on this paper that surfaced from an anon at orthomed talk Alternative Medicine: Watching the Watchdogs at Quackwatch Joel M. Kauffman Dept of Chemistry & Biochemistry, Univ of the Sciences in Philadelphia. Website Review, J. Scientific Exploration 16(2), 312-337 (2002) How can someone still call QW a reliable source for Misplaced Pages on orthomed/nutrition articles ?--TheNautilus 09:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I realize this may be an awkward situation for you & you may not be able to go further. I have been agreeable in the past to QW as a sentiment source too, but QW is not being used that way, it is being quoted as a source of ultimate authority and copy. One of the greatest problems with orthomed is the multiple misrepresentations of stilted conventional tests & papers, repeated and re-amplified, cyclically over decades until the physical results are unrecognizable and lost in the past (it has taken a lot of effort to get as far on the historical & technical science/medical b/g on OM as I have even with the internet). I feel that the orthomed article (and I) will have unresolvable conflicts until QW's WP:RS status is clearly addressed & recognized wrt to orthomed. I am looking for a conventional, independent view as a reality check, and then I need to decide how to deal with QW long term - I have been hammered at with this dreck for several months. I can explain the prejudicial, technical weaknesses until I am blue in the face but general SPOV, reason & facts seem highly optional with QW's faithful. Even with patient, knowledgeable, fairminded editors, Wiki is a keyhole to pump information through.--TheNautilus 09:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Just a few comments about certain principles, without having analyzed the situation very thoroughly. QW contains all kinds of information, so it is inaccurate to judge the whole site as an uniform entity. It contains reproductions of peer reviewed research, references to such, articles by experts in all kinds of fields, and op ed articles a la Consumer Reports. It's quite a spread of types of information, so criticism and praise should be specific and directed at the particular URL and author, not just to Quackwatch or Barrett (who doesn't author all articles). Using it as a RS would be appropriate in certain situatons, and inappropriate in other situations. It would always be appropriate when the subject of discussion is Barrett or Quackwatch itself, since the rules here allow citations from any source when they are written by the subject himself (or herself....;-). IOW, even Bolen (a devious, deceptive, and extremely unreliable source) can be quoted when discussing him or his site. Simply put, QW can always be quoted as documentation for an opinion it discusses, and Misplaced Pages is primarily about presenting various POV. -- Fyslee 23:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Straight chiropractic

Gleng, Fyslee placed this article on his talk page and I know it is long and arduous, but I think it makes a pretty good argument from the straight POV concerning accusations of being antiscience or religious. What's your take on the strength of their line of thought from a science POV?

--Dematt 12:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No doubt, I still have a headache! I promise, I won't do that to you again:) I just had to see if your response was similar to mine. I think there may be something to what they are saying, if they just would not scream it so loud, we might be able to hear;)
I saw your comment on tenditious editors and then I did this. Something has to be done so we can quit spinning our wheels. Not just for Mc and KV, but there has to be a way to fairly protect an article once the work is done. Hopefully sooner than later!
Did you get to see the section on FCLB. Its part of your vision to show the disciplinary actions. We still have to deal with the advertising, too. --Dematt 17:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Untied States

Don't you just hate when those States get Untied! --Dematt 13:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Mccready is issued a 30 day community ban from editing all articles related to Pseudoscience

Hello Gleng :-) Based on the comments left on AN/I, I issued a 30 day topic ban to Mccready. (see below) Hopefully Mccready will follow the consensus of the community and abstain from editing the articles for 30 days. Discussion by him on talk pages is encouraged. Admins can enforce the ban if needed.

Cross post from AN: Based on this discussion on AN/I and the numerous comments on Mccready's talk page, Mccready (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is issued a 30 day community ban from editing all articles related to the Pseudoscience. Mccready is encouraged to discuss his ideas on the talk pages of these articles. The the suggested sanction for disregarding the article ban is a 24 hour block with the block time adjusted up or down according to Mccready's response. Admins are encouraged to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of this article topic ban and make appropriate adjustments if needed.

Further discussion about the ban or request for enforcement can be made at AN/I or AN. Take care, FloNight 23:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

revert

your revert of my chiro edit just now was uncalled for. the argument was sufficiently and succintly made in the summary. you have offered no justification for your increasingly bold and bullying behaviour. please do so. Mccready 14:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Mccready, you have just been banned from editing articles related to Pseudoscience, and as you believe that chiropractic falls into this category, you are in breach of the ban, and your edit was therefore provocative. I worked through your complex multiple edit, as I expect everyone else reading it would feel obliged to do given your habits of making controversial edits directly before discussing them On one point I saw that the edit you had made was controversial as it removed an intended meaning, specifically the qualification that medical subluxation was not conventionally regarded as affectinf "general" health; this might not be well worded (indeed it isn't), but bnevertheless the distinction in meaning is one that is valuable to preserve. The ban is precisely to put the burden upon you to gain support for potentially controversial edits before inclusion, rather than continually force us to argue for reversion of changes that have no support. Your remark to FloNight ofn her page is I think a good example of why editors are so frustrated with you. You persist in assuming a) that because editors are for instance chiropractors, then they cannot edit objectively on chiropractic and comment fairly on others; and 2) in assuming that editors like myself are "ganging up" with others, or in a conspiracy, if we accept that on many occasions the insertions made by chiropractors (and acupuncturists and whoever) are sometimes well made and well supported by V RS, whereas insertions made by pro-scientists are sometimes very poorly researched, badly phrased, and weakly supported if at all by V RS. This is a collective slur on editors of integrity from many backgrounds.Gleng 14:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

this doesn't answer the question. See response on my talk. Mccready 15:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You're Invited

Come on over - --Dematt 23:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


Thanks

Just noticed your endorsement on my Barnstar. I appreciate your honesty. Steth 04:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)