Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RDOlivaw (talk | contribs) at 14:41, 22 January 2008 (→On reading academic articles). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive : 2007

Adoption

My classroom can be found here. I'll basically be guiding you through policies that are relevant to your editing. As far as editing anything relating to Homeopathy, refrain from making any changes in the article space. Take it all to the discussion pages to avoid any problems. Let me know if you need anything or have any questions. I'm here to help. Lara❤Love 15:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

COI and POV

Please do not add your POV to the article on James Gully. This is a blatant conflict of interest. I'd have thought you should have learned to steer clear of these articles by now. --147.171.255.159 (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You are also breaking WP:NOR and WP:SYN. --147.171.255.159 (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering his additions were sourced by a reference to the University of Cambridge perhaps you'd like to re-read WP:NOR. I see no problems with his additions. He has not skewed the information to put it into his own point of view. In fact, in you preventing these additions, you are swaying the POV of the article to your own. Lara❤Love 19:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a very strange way of looking at it. Dana changes the tone of the article to match the slander against Charles Darwin that he has in his book, and you say that it is not him changing the article to suit his POV? Also, the edits he made are not supported by the sources he provided. Yes, the fact Darwin disliked homeopathy is true, but that it worked on him has not been established and the edit is in violation of WP:SYN as well as WP:UNDUE. Since the POV s being skewed to support Dana's thesis, it also breaks (or comes close to breaking) WP:COI and possibly WP:NOR too. Perhaps Dana should engage in discussion on the talk page before changing the conclusions or adding new conclusions to a section, especially where it involves homeopathy and is so closely linked to one of his books. I also noticed that Lara's edit said "*and* typos" whereas it was actually you (Lara) that had reverted the typos. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

On rereading, I'm sorry if the above sounds confrontational, I didn't mean it too. I'm sure you acted as you did in good faith --88.172.132.94 (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears that there is a typo in each. I'm not going to engage in an edit war, but I'm going to put in an RFC. Incidentally, do you also edit via 147.171.255.159 and 147.171.255.140? Lara❤Love 23:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm 147.171.255.159 and 147.171.255.140. I have created an account now as I thought my IP was unique and static, but I now see that isn't the case. I happen to agree with 88.172.132.94 on this issue, or rather s/he agrees with me. --RDOlivaw (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Signature

Add this to your preferences and check the box to enable raw signature.
] ] <sup>]</sup> to create: Dana Ullman

The "Talk" link will show as a link on all pages but this one. Lara❤Love 03:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith

Hi again Dana. Re your edits on Beethoven about me, please assume good faith in your edits. I registered this account this morning and told you about it above, and the two IP addresses I have used were used sequentially. I had only made one comment there, under this account, so my IP history was irrelevant. I also see nothing wrong with my combined edit history, of supporting NPOV and the scientific point of view, weighting fringe theories appropriately. I'll try to find out how to make it clear on my new account that I previously used those IPs if it bothers you so much. Maybe you should avoid articles with homeopathic content, or adding homeopathic content to articles --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources for Homeopathy

I figured it might be worth asking your opinion of this. I don't know if you're supposed to participate in Talk:Homeopathy per LaraLove but I thought you might at least be able to suggest some sources that you consider suitable for serious consideration as reliable for our purposes. —Whig (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Participation on the talk page is appropriate, in my opinion. Lara❤Love 19:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis and making unsupported implications

Dana, please read and digest WP:SYN before making any more changes to the James Gully article, and please discuss your edits first if you have reason to believe they may be controversial (which you clearly did from the edit summary). The fact that A follows B does not mean A caused B, and there is not even the slightest support for your inferences in Darwin's letters. Whether he felt better or not after is irrelevant, as Darwin did not attribute it to Gully, and he regularly had periods before and after where his "condition" worsened and improved. Hence, I have reverted. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear 88, I do understand WP:SYN, and my edits were direct references to Darwin's letter, just as the information above it was links to his letters. You do not seem to have antipathy towards those statements, and thus, you are showing strong POV. Please note that Darwin has clearly asserted that this improvement, 6 weeks after arrival at Gully's clinic, was more than twice as long as any improvement that he had had in the past year. Please also note that I did not attribute this improvement to only homeopathic treatment but to the treatment that he received from Gully. Darwin is very appreciative of Gully, and if you want, I can give reference to the numerous times that he went back to receive his care. I suggest that you pull away from editing subjects dealing with homeopathy due to your strong prejudice against it. Consider getting an admin to mentor you because it seems that your strong POV-pushing is over-the-top. It is not enough to just get your fellow anti-homeopathic friends to add their comments and have them explain why Darwin's letters in which he comments on his skepticism of homeopathy are OK, and yet, his letters on his significant improvement at 8 days after treatment and after 6 weeks after treatment are not OK. You cannot have it both ways, despite your pushing to make it so. Dana Ullman 22:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Dana, I really don't care about your opinion of me. If you make bad edits to a page I am active on I will remove them. Your arguments are poor and hold no water. I am not trying to turn the Gully page into a discussion of homeopathy, but I am in fact trying to stop your repeated claims and implications that homeopathy helped Darwin at all. Your insistence on "and homeopathy" is clearly not supported, and I am in fact removing POV from the page. The statements above your additions are directly supported by quotes from Darwin, whereas you simply say 8 weeks later he felt better - but there is no evidence that this had anything to do with Gully! I also find you accusations against me both insulting and hilarious --88.172.132.94 (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Calm down 88. I'm simply trying to help you avoid losing your cool. For instance, on the day of your message above, you broke the 3RR rule. Please avoid doing that. Continual and purposeful edit warring can be dangerous for your health...and for wikipedia.Dana Ullman 22:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Dana. 88.172.132.94 appears to be calm to me, and just looking at the diffs I saw no evidence that on the 14th that user broke the 3RR. They did make reversions, but also numerous edits that were not reversions. Please comment on the articles and how to improve them, and not on editors. Please assume good faith and do not make accusations, which is what the user was complaining about --RDOlivaw (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've put in a request for comment to help get this issue resolved. If anyone believes I've misspoken in the request (located on the article's talk page) please make corrections (expressed consent to edit my comment) careful to maintain a neutral point of view. Regards, Lara❤Love 15:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My concern with 88.172.132.94 is that he broke the 3RR rule on January 11th The evidence is here: ]. I just ask that he avoid being over-zealous in his editing. Dana Ullman 03:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

At no point have I ever reverted that page, and I have only made additions to the talk page. Why don't you try another page and another date? Is this an example of your research, Dana? ... --88.172.132.94 (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

He's confused you with 147 who registered as RDOlivaw. Attempt to maintain some respect. Lara❤Love 16:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Or, even more probable, now that I've looked closer, he probably meant to link the article history, which you have edited, and not the talk history, as 3RR on talk doesn't really happen. However, I don't see any 3RR violations. 3RR is actually more than 3 reversions in 24 hours. I don't see where that's happened. Dana, please double check such things before making accusations. Or have me or another admin review it. Lara❤Love 16:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I only erred in mis-stating the date of the 3RR violations. Please note that RDOlivaw edited the James Manby Gully article (not the talk page) seven times on January 14th, and 88.172.132.94 edited it four times. I will admit that I'm wrong IF I'm wrong, but I do not think I am. Please check yourself at:

Those aren't all revisions. 3RR is the "3 Revert Rule". One cannot make more than three reversion on an article in 24 hours, with exceptions. Lara❤Love 05:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I get it...it is not just 3 edits, it is 3 reversions that are not allowed. Ok...and thanx for the clarity. Can you review your request for comment on the Gully page. Some people are accusing me of "synthesis," asserting that I referencing multiple sources and then making inferences from these various sources, when I am at present only referencing one source: Darwin's letters. Clearly, Darwin got better within 8 days of treatment and during the next couple of months under Dr. Gully's care. I verify each fact with each letter (one at a time). I further show that it is a fact that the treatment that Gully provided was water-cure and homeopathy. What, if anything, am I doing wrong...or should the other editors be educated? Dana Ullman 12:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Potassium dichromate

Please stop edit warring against consensus on the potassium dichromate article. David D. (Talk) 06:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

In due respect, I uncovered new evidence for the notability of this study: its reference in the New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA...and I could reference many other medical and scientific journals. Are you now suggesting that these journals are not notable? Please explain your logic. See the Discussion page for potassium dichromate.Dana Ullman 12:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggesting if you want to achieve your goal you need to persuade people on the talk page, especially if more than one person keeps removing your content. Extended discussion on the talk pages are the only way to achieve any kind of stability with respect to controversial topics. David D. (Talk) 18:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

On reading academic articles

Dana, I think you should read references more carefully. I don't know what your academic background is, so maybe this is just due to unfamiliarity with academic journals, but NEJM and JAMA say that the Potassium Dichromate study cites their articles - their articles do not cite that study. If you would have just looked at the dates, this would have jumped out (2002 articles don't often cite 2005 articles). Anyway, keep that in mind, maybe it will be helpful. Antelan 17:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Antelan, I certainly did see those date issues, though on the web, the CHEST article is linked to the NEJM and JAMA articles just as I said it was...if the NEJM and JAMA did not think that the CHEST study was notable, they would not have linked it to their articles...and of course, there are many many others that I could have highighted as well. Perhaps I should have simply said that the NEJM and JAMA has "linked" to the CHEST study. Dana Ullman 12:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, it's an automatic thing. Any article that references any NEJM or JAMA article automatically gets a linkback from them. For a comparison that might make more sense, imagine if you had a personal website and Google linked to it. It's meaningless - nobody at Google put your site into the index. Likewise, nobody at NEJM thoughtfully linked to the Chest article - it's automated. Antelan 12:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It is NOT an "automatic" thing. Only certain articles from certain sources will be listed. The NEJM and JAMA are selective, and they choose notable listings. Dana Ullman 12:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is incorrect. The sources that they will cite from are pre-selected (i.e., Chest made the cut), but the actual citations are automatic. Antelan 22:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And why do YOU think that "Chest" made the cut? Please also show me your published letter in this journal as to why it is not "notable." Dana Ullman 13:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, Chest is a fine journal, but that's off topic. You claimed that NEJM/JAMA intentionally linked to the specific article at hand, which was untrue. Antelan 18:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If NEJM and JAMA both link to THIS journal, the journal AND its contents are notable. Are you now suggesting that you should cherry-pick specific articles from high-ranking scientific journal just because they do not fit into your own worldview? I hope not. Dana Ullman 19:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

To say another way, they noted it. Hence, notable. —Whig (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a gross conceptual error. We can continue this discussion elsewhere if there is still confusion. Antelan 20:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Antelan, will you next say that only certain articles in JAMA, the Lancet, and NEJM are notable? If so, who makes that determination? If not, why wouldn't CHEST be a part of this high-profile and highly respected medical journal? In fact, it is the leading journal in its specialty...and this study on COPD is so formidable that TWO separate replication trials are in development. If this isn't notable, please explain. And please (!) do not repeat the incorrect statements that others above have made that this was a "pilot" trial (it wasn't) or that it was a "small" trial (not for a COPD trial). Dana Ullman 21:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If this is a notable journal then we don't need to establish notability on a per-article basis. If there are criticisms of this study in other reliable publications they should also be cited. —Whig (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Dana, that is correct, not all studies, even in those journals, are notable. You'd have to look at their citations (easy), their impact on the field (difficult), or their coverage in the mainstream press (easy). A citation is a reference made from within an academic article to another article, just so we are clear on this terminology. Antelan 22:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Antelan here. To say that some automatic cross-referencing system implies notability is plainly ludicrous. Also, I will accept your apology for the unfounded accusations you have repeatedly made against me. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Antelan...if you are asserting that research is only notable if the popular press writes about it, we would have to ignore 99% of research published in the leading journals, let alone all of the other highly respected medical journals. Because there are TWO universities who are presently planning replications of the CHEST study, this confirms the notability of the original study. If this study was not notable, other major research centers would ignore it. As they say, "replication is a form of flattery" (or something like that!). End of story...this study IS notable. As for 88...if you are referring to the one-time error of mine in which I asserted that you broke the 3RR, I apologize for that one-time error. Do I get to request an apology for every one of your errors? Dana Ullman 23:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read the entirety of my comment before replying, as it will save some confusion. I offered 3 methods of determining notability; popular press coverage was only 1 of those 3. The list is illustrative, and not meant to be exhaustive. As for planned events, I will refer you to WP:CRYSTALBALL. Antelan 23:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there an appropriate noticeboard where we might take this discussion? —Whig (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the fact that two (!) separate universities are planning replication trials is evidence that this original trial was notable. If it wasn't, it would be ignored. Is that a reasonable assumption? Therefore, it IS notable.Dana Ullman 03:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Dana, but Antelan does not and repetition of the facts won't resolve this dispute. We should be seeking some way out of this impasse. —Whig (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And I disagree. This study is not yet notable. It may become so later, after these other studies have been published, or if it is used in a meta analysis or such, but until then it is a primary source that has received few citations, especially from high impact journals. The cross-referencing system is not a marker of notability. Why don't you just wait to see what these next two studies say, and then for a secondary source to evaluate them in some acceptable way. Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source. Maybe you should look at WP:NOT, specifically the soapbox clause. Also, I think I have apologised whenever it is necessary.

When you submit a journal for publication, you have to send some meta info called "keywords". These are added to the journals database, and other journals can see this data. If you look at an article on one journal site with the keywords "COPD" and "treatment", for example, they will show you in a "see also" section other articles with a matching keywords (using some other meta data as well). This is automatic, and does not infer any extra status on the articles so cross-referenced --88.172.132.94 (talk) 07:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindented) So studies used in a meta-analysis are notable? Anthon01 (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's been suggested. The meta-analysis may be notable, and it is at least a secondary source. That's one reason why the peer-reviewed and well received Shang meta-analysis can be used. Things generally don't become notable automatically. The Shang meta analysis, for example, cited poor studies. Those are obviously no good as sources. However just because it's a meta analysis doesn't mean it's a good source or notable --RDOlivaw (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Just above 88 wrote "This study is not yet notable. It may become so later, after these other studies have been published, or if it is used in a meta analysis or such, but until then it is a primary source that has received few citations, especially from high impact journals." Anthon01 (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The only reason that this COPD study wasn't included in any previous meta-analysis is that there haven't been any recently published meta-analyses since its publication in 2005. That said, does reference to this article in FASEB make it more notable? FASEB is a high-impact journal. Although this reference is to one of my writings, the editor still chose to publish my writings, still making it notable. Dana Ullman 14:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

He did say "may become notable", and no I'm afraid it doesn't reach the inclusion standard for an article on Potassium dichromate. If no meta analysis have yet been performed, then we'll have to wait, and then judge notability. If this article were to get thousands of positive citations (not all citations are positive), then it may become worth of inclusion. I followed your link and found one letter, written by you, and not a scientifically reviewed article. Why would this have any effect on whether it should be included?--RDOlivaw (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

1. http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/full/20/14/2661