Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) at 18:44, 14 September 2013 (→Missed you: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Start-11/07 12/07-02/08 02/08-07/08 07/08-11/08 11/08-05/09 05/09-03/10 03/10-11/10 11/10-12/11 12/11 to 12/12 12/12-present

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Acupuncture and Biomedical Correlate

Review request for a review on the ACUPUNCTURE page, first paragraph. See the Talk page, "Physical correlates of acupoints" section and "Physical correlates of acupoints, Part Two." I am concerned that an ethnocentric bias on the part of editors has prevented a simple edit. The editors stand by some very shaky references and will not accept references from the most prestigious universities in the world, including those in China. At issue, the current article reads inaccurately, "Scientific investigation has not found any histological or physiological correlates for traditional Chinese concepts such as qi, meridians and acupuncture points," and yet I have sourced numerous peer reviewed studies from reputable sources showing MRI brain activity, hemodynamic and oxygen pressure correlates. Please review, I think you will find the hard science very interesting. Please let me know if this request is OK. TriumvirateProtean (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Your entire objection, from what I can tell of your actual edits (your talk page postings are quite long) seem to be based on Hong et al. 2012. This is a primary source, which according to WP:MEDRS are to be used with caution, if at all. Given the actual study - a single measure of a small number of subjects, on a single acupuncture point on the wrist - there is no reason to claim vindication of all acupuncture points on all humans justifying all claims made about acupuncture's health effects. I wouldn't even note this in the body unless there is considerable replication and extension.

Also, it would be extremely helpful if you changed your signature to match your editor name, as otherwise it is confusing and difficult to link your actual talk page postings with your mainspace edits. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I cited many other reputable sources, all were shot down. However, the sources in place are not very good if not inconsistent and don't even stack up to the array of references I have given from multitudes of sources, each with quotes and explanations. I am not trying to assert that all acupuncture points have been measured with correlates, but the current acupuncture says there are no correlates whatsoever, which is a misrepresentation based on papers and studies of small scale that are not peer reviewed or based on placebo controlled, randomized trials. I appreciate the effort.TriumvirateProtean (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

For the love of God, please change your signature block.

I've looked at your references and am unimpressed. When a real signal exists, science will, over time, converge on that signal and reduce the noise. While it is possible there are specific effects for specific points, I don't believe there is a consensus yet regarding which points and which specifics. Looking at Choi et al., from what I can tell the only source that can actually be used, it's at best suggestive. Science has not yet converged on an answer. If your sources were shot down, then you either need better sources or need to cite the policy-based reason you think the "shooting down" was not appropriate. I frankly am uninterested in reading a massive wall of text - all I want to see are the references, which I will parse similar to my response here. Based on this source, it is far too early to state that this is a slam-dunk and that acupuncture points exist. Please focus your efforts on recent review articles, not primary sources, as that will produce the most fruitful discussions. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I too am unimpressed. Just because the brain reacts ("showing MRI brain activity, hemodynamic and oxygen pressure correlates") when a needle is poked into a point, claimed to be an acupuncture point, is no proof of anything special with that point. A needle poked at ANY locality nearby will also elicit measurable responses in the brain. Big deal. The ONLY thing being proven is what's obvious....brain cells are connected to body parts. Duh! There is still no evidence of predictable cures for any disease. There is still no evidence of a clear physiological or histological difference between acupuncture points and nearby points. No anatomy or histology textbook contains such information. Felix Mann, an extremely important and major figure in acupuncture, was correct: "The traditional acupuncture points are no more real than the black spots a drunkard sees in front of his eyes" and "The meridians of acupuncture are no more real than the meridians of geography." His views should not be suppressed from the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Question about BLP policy

Hi WLU. When editing a BLP, does the policy apply also to an organisation associated with the person? Or just the person himself/herself? I am looking at WP:BLPGROUPMisplaced Pages:BLPGROUP#Legal_persons_and_groups which seems to suggest it does not apply, and only normal policies do. The article in particular is a BLP on Kalki Bhagavan, a religious guru. There are a number of reliable sources in relation to the activities of his organisation, but a very limited number of sources about the man himself. Cheers M Stone (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on BLP by any means, I actually avoid contributing to a lot of LP pages because of it (too complicated). My understanding of it is that BLP applies everywhere - talk pages, discussion boards, and certainly main pages. BLPGROUP is more about corporations, which are considered persons through a bit of trickery - the standards for corporations are lower. Individuals within the corporation however, are bound by BLP. Basically, if you're saying something about a group - the standards for sources is a bit lower. If you're saying someone about a person who happens to be a member of the group, your standards are higher and you must exert greater caution. If the sources are primarily about the group Bhagavan leads, you can't say much about the man himself unless the sources specifically make a point that applies to him. If there are few sources about Bhagavan, you might want to merge his page into his group's page.

Much wiser guidance can be found on the WP:BLPN. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 20:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it may call for the creation of a separate page covering the group. M Stone (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:HITLER listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Misplaced Pages:HITLER. Since you had some involvement with the Misplaced Pages:HITLER redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). —— 08:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Paul Loeb

Back in 2009 you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Help request

I am new and I am not up to speed on editing yet. I saw this paragraph in an article you had worked on and it seemed...POV...not sure of the word to use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/William_Donald_Kelley

"In the 1970s, Kelley looked forward to a fair and proper evaluation of his controversial metabolic diet methods, but he eventually became despondent and paranoid due to fierce opposition from the medical orthodoxy regarding his treatment plan. He wrote a book entitled "One Answer to Cancer," detailing his experiences as well as his methods. By the 1980s, his marriage had broken up, he had lost control of his once-thriving organization, his dental license had been revoked, and his mental and physical health had deteriorated. Kelley died of a heart attack on January 30, 2005 in Arkansas City.

It sounds like a PR pamphlet or an apology from one of the faithful. Mostly the first sentence. Could you give me a little input here? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.136.183 (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on the Satanic ritual abuse talk page

It's becoming clear that KrystalMan and Jimjilin are up to some pretty spurious editing behavior. If you lodge a complaint and need a third party I'm happy to add what I've seen just recently. For now...reverting. --Rhododendrites (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

KM's problematic contributions are right now too low and sporadic to really do anything. Be prepared for some wikistalking though. Fortunately it appears to be separated by several months between spurious reverts and talk page nonsense. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Missed you

I missed seeing you around this summer. I hope all's well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)