Misplaced Pages

User talk:Gleng

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FloNight (talk | contribs) at 23:09, 16 September 2006 (Mccready's 30 day community ban from pseudoscience related articles). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:09, 16 September 2006 by FloNight (talk | contribs) (Mccready's 30 day community ban from pseudoscience related articles)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome from the Wikidocs

Greetings. I met you through the hypothalamus page. There is a group of physicians that is keeping track of medical things around here. It is a nice group. There is a general page on medical topics at User_talk:Jfdwolff/WikiDoc. A user named User:Jfdwolff has done a great ob of alerting medical professionals to it. I was going to alert her to your being on Misplaced Pages, but she is gone til sometime in March, so I am taking it upon myself to welcome you. JFD keeps track of the medical page orgaization. The wikidoc group seems mostly physicians, but we have other knowledgable people in the group, and by that measure you are qualified in spades.

Again, it is a pleasure having an academic who is such a good communicator on Misplaced Pages. Welcome to the community.

Steve Holland Kd4ttc 01:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, saying that I keep track of the medical page organisation is an overstatement. The WikiProject (at WP:CLINMED) is a central hub of activity for clinicians, medical students and of course academics. Given your experience in medical scientific writing, you appear to be uniquely equipped to present hard scientific information in a form that is accessible for the informed layperson. I have personally found writing for Misplaced Pages immensely useful in learning how to present clinical science to patients.
Despite what Steve says, I'm actually male. :-) JFW | T@lk 20:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Neuroscience

Mr. Gleng: Judging from your edits you are interested in neuroendocrinology. We've got a group over at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Neuroscience who could use some expertise in that area. If you'd like to join us we'd be honored. Cheers! Semiconscious • talk 01:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Addictive, isn't it?

Eh? NIce edits. Kd4ttc 23:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


Lateralisation

Cheers! I felt good after creating hat page started but then it devolved into protracted arguments about "mathematics" with another user. I admit I was definitely not as amicable as I could have been. Anyway, it left a bad taste in my mouth after that encounter. I'm glad someone appreciates it. :) Semiconscious • talk 21:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Categories

Gleng, the categories are already messed up big time. Plz, stop making the mess bigger. You can't put an article into a category and the parent category of that category. Also it doesn't make sence to put the receptors for some of the neurotransmitters into the Category:Neurotransmitters. -- Boris 07:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

We really need subcategories in Neuroscience that will cover the receptors. You want to do that? -- Boris 18:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Homeopathy

You're very welcome. I should double-check the math with a calculator, though (and will today), I did it in my head. The figure for the Earth comes from a website, but given that there's 10 kg in the Solar System, and assuming the Earth is at most a part in a thousand, it's in the right ballpark. I'll check that too. In any case, regardless of the exact figures, having figures makes it clearer just what we mean by "very improbable." "Improbable" doesn't convey the same sense that "you'd need enough pills to fill a tenth of an Olympic swimming pool" does. -- Pakaran 15:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

OFC

Cheers dude. Yeah I have got in the habit of writing "passive voice" stuff for lay articles... ta! --PaulWicks 10:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

3 RR violation on Homeopathy

You've been blocked for 3 hours for violating the 3 revert rule. PLease refrain from any more reverts for some time when the block expires. Thanks.Gator (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

NatSel

I see how it goes. I think splitting the article will solve mosy of the problems, as the main discussion is between Darwin adapts and current day scientists. KimvdLinde 21:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the copy editing, I need it :-) English is not my first language, and being somewhat dyslectic does not help. KimvdLinde 14:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti-vaccinationist

Thanks. Your edits greatly improved that article. I have been thinking the way forward may actualy be to do a complete restart, and suggested this in the talk page. I got as far as taking the anti-catholicism (a model of civilised discourse and clear writing) article and then by doing a couple of global search and replace substituting into the structure of that article. Nobody else has joined in so far, so I've not been in a rush. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Anti-vaccinationist/temp is it. Midgley 11:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractic

Please respond to my answer posted on the talk page of Chiropractic. ackoz 18:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome. I've been watching for awhile and appreciate your balanced input. I'm not sure I'll be able to do any better, so please don't go too far! I think you are a very calming influence and both Steth and Fyslee obviously respect your input. I just saw an article today in "Dynamic Chiropractic" - a monthly magazine that has the headline "Chiropractic on Misplaced Pages: Controversy and opportunity" on the front page - so we may be getting more visitors. I don't know if that will be a good thing or not=) but it could get interesting. -- Dematt 18:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
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)

Kalokerinos

Gleng, I would appreciate the favor of you keeping an eye on the current conversation at Archie_Kalokerinos sa AK talk--69.178.41.55 21:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC) formerly isp 66.58...

Biobarnstar

The Bio-Barnstar
To acknowledge your hard work on the new version of Natural selection. Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I also just realised that you're also based at UoE.


natural selection

Could you please address this:  ?

Talk:Natural selection

I have foolishly tried to start a discussion on Talk:Natural selection concerning the definition of natural selection. If you have time, I'd like you to contribute -- or to tell me I'm a complete whack-o. Thanks. Ted 17:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for the trust that you had in me when you supported my Request for Adminship. The nomination ended successfully as you know and I am actually overwhelmed by the support that I received. I hope you are staying active at wikipedia, and if not, we might see each other who knows where! -- Kim van der Linde 06:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on homeopathy, I have now posted a reply which I hope covers most of the points raised. No offence meant. kind regards Peter morrell 14:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


Antiscience

Peter has created this article and it could be good, however currently there is a danger of it being very POV. Do you have any knowledge of, or any time for this article as help would be appreciated balancing and referencing it. Sophia 18:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


Chiropractic and PS

Gleng, I need you help. I want to do the right thing and I respect you expertise. --Dematt 23:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Gleng, as an admin, I can look at the deleted pages, and I saw your comment. Thank you! -- Kim van der Linde 18:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


Thanks

Thanks Gleng. After all these years and I could not have said it better. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. --Dematt 02:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Journal of Royal Society of Medicine

Gleng, do you have any way of letting me know whether this paper or this one say anything that would be relevant to the chiropractic page.

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)


Integrity and editors

KV appears not to have taken the invitation to drop this issue, and accuses editors of making personal attacks. My reading of the dispute is that the attacks have been upon allegedly dishonest and deceptive assertions made repeatedly by KrishnaVindaloo. My view is that these allegations are very clearly established. There have been clear examples of personal attacks on these pages, especially from KV who has consistently suggested that editors who disagree with him are not legitimate editors, who are conspiring in censorship, and who are not editing in good faith. KV has been treated with I think remarkable civility and restraint. It would be nice if KV were to concede that he has been deliberately deceptive to other editors and correct his ways. Failing that it would at least be appropriate for him to say no more. But allegations against other editors, from him, in context, are not to be borne


This account refers extensively to two references:

1) “A Re-emergence of Reparative Therapy. By: Christianson, Alice. Contemporary Sexuality, Oct2005, Vol. 39 Issue 10, p8-17, 10p; (AN 18639497).”

This citation is to a non-peer reviewed monthly newsletter of the American Association of sexuality educators counselors and therapists ; the issue concerned is not included in its archive for unknown reasons so I cannot verify anything said there. The newsletter is not listed by ISI and the author who has an MA has no publications recorded by ISI

2) The second reference is best introduced by repeating communication between Steth and the author.

" Hello Mr. Ford, I am not familiar with your work, as this is not my area of interest nor expertise. But recently I came across the following statement and was wondering if it was accurate. In other words, was chiropractic actually mentioned by you in your article noted below. I could only find the abstract, so I thought it would be best to ask you directly. "According to Ford (2001), though chiropractic has some supported aspects, it is also applied in a pseudoscientific way to an exceedingly wide range of conditions from treating dyslexia to curing or preventing homosexuality." The reference given was: Ford, J. (2001). Healing homosexuals: A psychologist's journey through the ex-gay movement and the pseudo-science of reparative therapy. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy, 5(3-4), 69-86. I ask this not to comment on your work, but rather to determine if it was the proper use of a reference regarding chiropractic. Thank you very much for your time. XXXXXX

Hello XXXXXX, NO! That is not a correct quote. I did not mention chiropractic anywhere in the article or anywhere else for that matter. It was a licensed consulting psychologist who used a device that delivered electric shocks to patients who were experiencing homosexual arrousal. Can you send me a link to that quote? Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Jeffry Ford, MA, LP

Documentation of relevant statements by KrishnaVindaloo (difs)


1) Insertion by KV of Ford reference to chiropractic as treatement for homosexuality

2) Reiteration of claim

3) KV states “Ford is a peer revewed article that specifically says chiropractic is pseudoscietifically applied to curing homosexuality etc”.

4) KV states ‘’According to Ford (2001), though chiropractic has some supported aspects, it is also applied in a pseudoscientific way to an exceedingly wide range of conditions from treating dyslexia to curing or preventing homosexuality’’

5) Gleng amends the reference to Ford to clarify that he is referring to psychotherapy not chiropractic. KV responds by describing this as “about the silliest I've seen in a while. Firstly its not what Ford was saying...”

6) Mcready modifies edit adding chiropractic in with psychotherapy; Gleng does not dissent, explaining that he could verify psychotherapy but cold not verify mention of chiropractic but if Mcready could then OK. No word from KV, the only one apparently with the original text.

7) KV repeats assertion about Ford content, after clear and open questioning, stating “Ford explains a set of pseudoscientific subjects that includes chiropractic. Chiropractic stands out in that list because psychotherapy is actually a fairly resonable (yet erroneous) way to "treat" homosexuality.”

8) Steth asks KV if he has actually read the Ford article, and explicitly asks him if chiropractic is mentioned in it. KV says yes

9) KV adds for the first time mention of an article by Christianson

10) KV now modifies the article using Christianson as a source for the assertion that chiropractic is used to cure homosexuality and Benedetti as a source that it is used to cure dyslexia. (Later he concedes that as Benedetti is a journalist and not an appropriate RS for this)

11) KV reiterates to Dematt assertion about chiropractic and homosexuality

12) For the first time, Steth alleges directly that the Ford article does not mention chiropractic. KV’s response is “Hello Steth. No, I've already explained that more clearly. Ford says reparative therapy is PS. Christianson specified chiropractic as part of reparative therapy. As above. Clarifications were made in the article before they were censored out again.”

13) In reply to Jim Bulter and Steth, KV now states “I cited Ford (the corroborating article) and ommitted Christianson (the source that states chiropractic is used to treat homosexuality)”

14) In response to Gleng, KV re-asserts claim and insists that Christianson is a good source ‘’The citation (Christianson) is perfectly reliable (She’s an expert at a university and has a perfectly good publication).’’

15) To Jim Butler, KV clarifies “::::*Christianson states that chiropractic back manipulations are used to treat homosexuality, and Ford supports this with a deeper discussion on other pseudoscientific aspects of such practices.”

16) KV reinserts into article ‘’Though chiropractic has some verified aspects, it is also applied in a pseudoscientific way to an exceedingly wide range of conditions from treating dyslexia and ear infections (Benedetti 2002) to curing homosexuality (Christianson 2005).’’

17) Steth accuses KV of lying about the Ford article KV in response states ‘’I will say again, Christianson states that chiropractic is used to cure homosexuality, and Ford elaborates upon this’’

18) KV insists that the Christianson source is reliable

19) KV repeats the implication that the Ford reference supports the assertion about chiropractic in response to ObsidianOrder| ‘’However, I believe it will be far easier to simply use the line, chiro used for curing homosexuality. Its brief and to the point. Chiropractic for ear infections is not so obvious to the reader (the jaw bone and inner ear bones can be manipulated). The homosexuality cure is more obviously pseudoscientific and reparative therapy is seen as pseudoscience (hence the Ford ref).’’

20) Steth establishes conclusively that Ford does not refer to chiropractic, implicitly or explicitly, in the cited article or anywhere.

21) Gleng makes a broad criticism of KV’s use of references: ‘’KV, you have made misleading statements about your references; you implied wrongly that a particular Conference Proceedings to be peer reviewed; you implied that Ford made a statement he categorically did not, and evaded admitting it when challenged. You cited both Bayerstein and Kaptchuk in ways that add your original inference to what they actually say, significantly distorting the meaning for a neutral reader. You gave on these pages a reference that I was totally unable to find and have not provided corrected access details. You are continually inserting OR into your edits by making your own inferences beyond what the authors actually state’’

KV responds declaring that it is self-evident that chiropractic is used to treat homosexuality ‘’So it is also self evident that it is used to treat homosexuality. In effect, there are a large number of sources that show this to be true. The Christianson ref is simply a corroboration of that fact.’’

22) KV responds by accusing editors of making personal attacks

Conflict reduction

Hello Gleng. I realise we don't see eye to eye on some facts, but please keep personal issues out of the discussion on pseudoscience. If you have a personal issue with me, discuss it civilly on my talk page. Thank you. KrishnaVindaloo 03:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I got one of those too. . •Jim62sch• 10:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, see this as well, •Jim62sch• 10:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-science

Your wikilawyering anti-science on chiro is unproductive. Pls edit cooperatively and cite your v RS source. The way you are going is not helpful. Mccready 16:18, 11 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)