Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:30, 1 June 2013

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

Misplaced Pages ads	file info – #24

Message for IPs

If you are an IP and need to contact me, you can leave comments on this subpage. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move: Alternative medicine → Complementary and alternative medicine

Yes, it's the wiki moment you've been waiting for ...

Request initiated for the article Alternative medicine to be moved to Complementary and alternative medicine. I'm notifying you as major contributor to the article. Relevant talk page discussion found here. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Chiropractic questions

Hi Brangifer. I thought you might have some insight or knowledge of sources on the following: is it the case that chiropractic (such a resistant word to normal English language use; it should be an adjective, no? the noun should be chiropraxis or chiropractice) is no longer considered to be a CAM/alt med in Denmark? Given the official Danish definition of CAM I presume this refers to its regulatory status? Oh, and what's the deal with, and how to categorise, osteopathy (inside and outside of the US)? FiachraByrne (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The quick answer would be that it's not even real chiropractic in Denmark. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Osteopathy in the USA is pretty much on a par with MD. They have the same legal status now. They officially renounced their original quackish beliefs many years ago, which opened the way for acceptance. Chiropractic has never done that. In other countries, osteopaths aren't physicians and they still practice in the old ways, much like chiropractic. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you may also like this paper Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1177/1049731512448468, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1177/1049731512448468 instead.

Ouch! Psychotherapy quackery at its worst. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for hijacking the discussion, but the quick-answer to Denmark's situation that "it's not even real chiropractic" is questionable IMO....a more 'accurate' answer might be that chiropractic is an evolving profession? Denmark is an example of the 'tip' of the progressive chiropractic movement, with general acceptance of chiropractic as a medical specialty for the conservative treatment of musculoskeletal conditions.

A similar situation is seen is Switzerland , where chiropractic has become much more mainstream:

• "With the start of a new chiropractic program in the faculty of medicine, University of Zürich, an in-depth look at chiropractic practice in Switzerland was needed..." and "Chiropractic practice in Switzerland is a government-recognized medical profession with significant interprofessional referrals..."

Canada is another country where the chiropractic profession has made significant movement towards the mainstream; for example, this source did not include chiropractic in their assessment of 'Alternative health consultations in Canada' because it is not included as a form of Alt Med in the Canadian Community Health Survey:

• " It is interesting to note that chiropractics are not included as a form of alternative health care in the CCHS, likely the result of this type of care now being recognized as mainstream rather than 'alternative' or 'complementary'."

The US has the majority of the worlds chiropractors, Kaptchuk & Eisenberg have described the evolution of the chiropractic profession in the US:

• "Even to call chiropractic "alternative" is problematic; in many ways, it is distinctly mainstream. Facts such as the following attest to its status and success: Chiropractic is licensed in all 50 states. An estimated 1 of 3 persons with lower back pain is treated by chiropractors.1 In 1988 (the latest year with reliable statistics), between $2.42 and $4 billion3 was spent on chiropractic care, and in 1990, 160 million office visits were made to chiropractors. Since 1972, Medicare has reimbursed patients for chiropractic treatments, and these treatments are covered as well by most major insurance companies. In 1994, the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research removed much of the onus of marginality from chiropractic by declaring that spinal manipulation can alleviate low back pain."

BRangifer, I think that you consider 'real' chiropractic to involve a belief in innate intelligence and vitalism, however, I would describe that as 'traditional' chiropractic, as:

• "Today, a substantial number of chiropractors are anxious to sever all remaining ties to the vitalism of innate intelligence. For these practitioners, the notion of the innate serves only to maintain chiropractic as a fringe profession and to delay its "transition into legitimate professional education, with serious scholarship, research, and service." Puhlaa (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Twas the reindeers that drew me here. Thanks Puhlaa, that's extremely interesting and useful. FiachraByrne (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure FiachraByrne! While I am glad that the chiropractic profession is moving towards the mainstream and even already gaining mainstream acceptance in some countries, it is noteworthy that a significant proportion of practicing chiropractors do still maintain a 'traditional' paradigm. My own research and that of some of my colleagues has suggested that ~20% are practicing with a 'traditional' approach. Some very well-respected authors (eg: Scott Haldeman have thus described the chiropractic profession as currently "standing at the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine". Puhlaa (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Puhlaa, you are ALWAYS welcome here! You are not hijacking the discussion, but adding to it. That's fine with me. You are correct that my definition of "real chiropractic" is connected to the original premises upon which the profession is based, and which many chiropractors still hold to be true. The chiropractic use of spinal "adjustments" WITHOUT the intention to "correct vertebral subluxations" (the wording and legal requirement under Medicare law in the USA) is not real chiropractic, but a PT, DO, or MD practice, just as acupuncture WITHOUT the intent to affect "meridians" is not real acupuncture, but needling. The corollary is pretty exact, as both are vitalistic forms of energy medicine.

OTOH, you are absolutely correct that there are increasing numbers of chiropractors, mostly the younger ones, who are eager to distance themselves from "subluxations" and vitalism. The majority of older ones, who are still in practice and dominate the leadership and education of the profession still hold to that doctrine. Unfortunately several straight schools still exist, including the largest one, Life University, and therefore huge numbers of chiropractors still graduate with a belief that vertebral subluxations are the cause of all disease. Yes, Canada and Denmark are certainly exceptional in that regard. There are probably a much higher percentage of Canadian and Danish chiropractors who never use the word "subluxation." I once did a comparison study, and should have been more systematic and published the results, but it was an informal study. This was about 2003-4. I visited over twenty websites which I knew were straight websites, and where the correction of subluxations was preached with evangelic fervor. I had visited these websites often for several years. Well, I came away from the experience rather startled and wondering if I had lost my sanity! Nearly all of them had completely dropped the use of the word. To verify if I had remembered correctly or was in error, I checked older versions of the same pages at the Internet Archives. Lo and behold, I was correct. They had eliminated the offending word, but not only had they not changed their practice or belief, they had substituted more kosher words that still meant the same thing. This not only did not represent a reform in beliefs, it represented deliberate deception in an attempt to fly under the radar. Very disappointing!

Be that as it may, as this process proceeds, we will no doubt see chiropractic being dropped from official lists of alternative medicine practices, RS will then reflect this, and we will then be able to report it here. We follow the sources, whether we agree or not.

The Canadian Community Health Survey chose to only include three of the many forms of alternative medicine that exist within Canada. We can't conclude anything more than that. That would be OR. The very first reference in that article mentions chiropractic as a form of alternative medicine.

The idea of being a "real chiropractor" is used very pointedly by Douglas Andersen, a DC in Brea, CA (in Los Angeles). He counts himself as an exception:

• "I understand there are many who feel that a "real" chiropractor would not practice this way. Fine. If being a real DC means wellness care, asymptomatic care, excessive x-rays, poor working relationships with MDs, rejection of scientific data, bizarre techniques, outrageous claims, and the same treatment each visit regardless of the problem, then I don't want to be a "real" DC.
  "The only thing "real" DCs and I agree upon is that we would both like the public to look at our title and have an idea of what we do. Maybe all DCs would benefit if those of us who reject pseudoscientific subluxation-based philosophical chirobabble (designed to addict the world to manipulation) had a different title. I would proudly introduce myself as a medipractor, a treatipractor, a physical medicine therapist, a doctor of chiropractic medicine, or whatever it would take to inform the public there is a basic difference."

Other chiropractors have also objected. This one wrote the following at Chirotalk. I used to frequent it, but haven't even visited the website for several years:

The elusive chiropractic "subluxation"

By: A chiropractor

I have great memories of the first time I experienced "subluxation diagnosis" at Life University.

I was a wide-eyed, idealistic chiro convert in first quarter. I went to some club (maybe Mo-Pal?) and some upper quarter student "analyzed" me.

I had just gotten adjusted that afternoon by my field doc and I thought he was going to be impressed by how I was subluxation-free. (At that time, I thought that subluxations were real, verifiable, etc.)

He was pleased to tell me that he had found many, many subluxations in my spine. I was horrified. What had my field doc been doing for two years? Don't worry, the upper quarter student said, everyone has subluxations all the time, it's normal.

Huh? I was so confused. How could everyone have subluxations all the time? Were they silently dying from these Killer Subluxations?

Next, I went to Full Spine club. I was finally going to find out a little about the complex, scientific analysis that chiros used to find subluxations. But when I got there, it was basically just a bunch of people who would find a few muscle spasms and then CRACK ! I asked them, in panic, how they were sure that areas of muscle tightness were really subluxations. Their answer: Oh sure, they're probably subluxations. Muscle spams are a component of Vertebral Subluxation Complex.

At that time, I still thought subluxations were REAL FINDINGS and didn't realize they were a dime a dozen and every chiropractor could find different listings on the same exact patient.

The funniest thing I ever remember was in some class (maybe Thompson or Activator) where the teacher was telling us to adjust based on a leg check. I remember some student asking, "But what if the X-RAY LISTINGS are different than the leg check?"

I just had to laugh. At that time, I still believed in chiropractic but knew that most chiros didn't use the x-rays for anything except a patient scare tactic. Not only that, but x-ray listings were bogus due to x-ray distortion, spinal assymetry, among a million other things. Worse, chiropractic adjustments do not change x-rays listings.

So, I, even still a chiro believer, just had to laugh. How could my classmate in 9th or 10th quarter still actually believe that Gonstead style x-rays listings were valid or important? How could he actually believe, after all the contradictions we'd seen, that subluxations were real and not just one particular doctor's imagination (vs. another doctor's imagination)? It was like a 20 year old who still believed in the Easter Bunny.

It always amazes me that students can't see the obvious when they look at all the contradictory techniques and analysis system. The reason that practically anybody can invent their own technique system is because you are dealing with a mythological entity. That's why any New Age guru can invent their own "healing energy" system.

You say atlas is out, he says sacrum is the primary. Who cares? Let's all be friends. No one really BELIEVES in this junk anyway, right? Let's just jump through the hoops so we can get out there and pay back these loans!

END of story.

Well, things are changing in the profession, and we all hope that the dinosaurs who still control the reigns will soon loosen their grasp. The transition is happening, but does it reflect itself in a change of practice, or just a change of terminology? I still see DCs doing just as many adjustments, for every type of problem, regardless of real etiology. That's not progress or reform. They are caught between a rock and a hard place, and I know many who have dropped out and are in other health care professions, especially since chiropractic usage has fallen over the years. It is estimated that over 50% of chiropractors have given up within five years of graduation, and they also have the highest default rate on student loans. The temptation to join practice building rackets to get those loans paid off is very strong, thus leading to scams and quackery. To give up subluxation terminology, at least in the USA, causes another problem, since they cannot bill Medicare for any treatment that is not for the purpose of "correcting subluxations." If they drop spinal manipulation for every problem (the only responsible thing to do), then they are in danger of infringing on the territory of the already established profession of Physical Therapy, which has many times more practitioners, and PT has always been an entrenched part of mainstream medicine. They have never been "alternative." BTW, I just found a cool chart comparing PTs and DCs. I don't know if it's totally accurate, but interesting nonetheless. The Bureau of Labor Statistics also lists some good figures: Physical Therapists and Chiropractors. I have a question. Canada, being the more enlightened and modern land (seriously!), compared to the primitive USA, as regards funding of education, does it pay for chiropractic education, or do DCs in Canada end up with a huge student loan debt? In Denmark it's paid, like all other educations, through taxes. I have never become a citizen, yet all four years of my PT education (which were post college prerequisites) was paid for. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for being welcoming and for the comments, Brangifer. With regard to your specific question about education funding, it is different between Quebec and the rest of Canada. In Quebec, the DC program is part of a public-funded university and the costs are thus partially subsidized by the government like any other public university program in Canada. The only English-speaking DC school in Canada (CMCC) does not receive any government funding for tuition (although the feds did just fund a $150,000 simulation lab for emergency care at CMCC). The tuition at CMCC is partially subsidized with private donations, etc, but I don't know to what extent. My tuition was $22,000/year ($88,000 over 4 years). This is indeed a heavy debt-load, especially considering that most students are coming with student debt from their undergraduate degree as well. That said, the classmates that I got to know well during the program are now all doing very well and will have no issues with this debt (however, I believe that there may be some selection bias associated with my personal anecdote). For comparison, the government does partially subsidize medical education in Canadian public universities; my little brother payed $13,000/year ($52,000 over 4 years) for medical school. His earning potential will eventually be higher than mine, but not until after he has existed as a slave (resident) for another couple of years :) Hope that answers your question? Puhlaa (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm always interested in the subject of social justice, especially human rights. In Denmark, as in the rest of the social democracies of Scandinavia, they have all the human rights one has in the USA and Canada, but they also add education and health care as human rights, and thus funded through taxation. That means no tuition or medical bills. There are some exceptions, but one never need worry about the costs of education or health care. In the USA, my homeland, human rights are limited, and anything like what I've described is viewed as evil socialism. Well, if it's better for the populace, done freely, and they retain more human rights than in the USA, good for them. Consequently they have a better educated populace, with better employment, job security, social benefits, fewer working hours, more vacation time, more accessible and cheaper health care, etc.. There are a whole host of reasons why they are rated the happiest people on earth. I have never lived in Canada, but I suspect it's somewhere between the Scandinavian model and the American model. You may know better. You are lucky to live there. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the very detailed replies. I guess it's to be expected that they would, if possible, move more towards a standard biomedical model if professionalizing (and it's probably more possible for this type of therapy - not an avenue for all of these alt meds, certainly). You see similar things reported for TCM within China (the systems are too incompatible for syncreticism so TCM - meaning of "pulse" etc - becomes narrowed and translated into biomedical terms; which is not to say that it becomes scientific necessarily or effective but it is changed). For chiropractic, if this route is followed, there must still remain a problem of differentiation from other similar professions (physical therapy); how are they to be distinguished (special knowledge, training, etc). The whole issue also underlines the problem of definitions, even stipulative ones.

Scandinavian welfare system looks to be quite fantastic although they normally say that this model is dependent on a high degree of social homogeneity (perhaps, but ...); the NHS was also a remarkable achievement. The medical profession, normally socially conservative, can be quite an impediment towards the introduction of such schemes.

Oh, you said on the talk page that sociologists, anthropologists had taken the wrong side when analysing medical systems (alt and conventional, etc). The problem is not that some (perhaps the majority in the anglophone literature) have taken the wrong side but that they have taken a side at all (which leads them into stupidities or into making statements about efficacy of therapies, etc, which - at least within biomedical terms - lie outside their competence. Their job should be just to describe and analyze; not to politick or moralize. Thanks again. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The chiropractic profession has decided that they will market themselves as "the spinal health care experts in the health care system." Well, that is either a limited field already covered by PT (or very easily covered by them), or a huge one, IF one accepts the original chiropractic thesis that all diseases originate in the spine. Well, that claim is patently false, so that doesn't leave enough for a whole profession. A profession needs a wider field of labor. I have previously argued for creating a fast track incorporation into Physical Therapy (probably two years) for chiros who are more science based in their thinking. They would have to learn some things and unlearn other things. What I've discovered instead is that they usually drop out and do other things. Many do it within the first five years. Some become MDs, PAs, PTs, or nurses. If such a fast track program existed, I suspect more would take that route, and that would be great because they already have some good skills and knowledge. There just isn't room for, or a need for, another profession with that emphasis.

About sociologists, you have nailed it on the head. That is exactly what I believe too. Otherwise they do a valuable service. For purists in the medical field (a dying breed), mixing unproven with proven methods is unacceptable, even for social reasons. They still see the trend toward EBM as the way to go. It provides a method for testing what has been used for years and eliminating what proves to have been used on a false basis, and also for screening any method, new or old, which clamors for acceptance within modern medicine. A winnowing process is essential. The growing postmodernist tendency to seek to do "whatever makes people happy" and whatever will make more money seems to be gaining ground, ethics be damned. It's a return to the dark ages. One thing that could stem this tide is insurance companies refusing to spend money on unproven methods, but they are greedy businesses, and if enough customers demand a service and are willing to pay for it, the insurance company caves in and includes that method in some policies, even if it's a ridiculous method. Greed is what's screwing up health care. If we could get the profit motive out of it, it would do much better. I'm all for including effective methods, regardless of their origins, but they should be proven first. Some sociologists weigh in and argue for acceptance of unproven methods because they are popular, because so many people use them anyway, etc.. That doesn't sit right with me. As for Misplaced Pages, we document what's happening, what people have written, their opinions, their actions, etc.. We just need to keep telling the whole story. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Drk878 (talk · contribs) FiachraByrne (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC) It's not dark yet (for some) but it's gettin' there. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

IP you warned this am

I think they need a 1RR warning on climate change but can't find the appropriate warning. Do you know where it is? And maybe a mention at Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience? I am now confused as to whether as an involved editor I can do the warning. Dougweller (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Doug. I don't see that IP making any edits elsewhere than the two articles I warned them about. Nothing at Climate change. What am I missing here? I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to give them simple warnings since it's a behavioral issue, rather than a content issue. We can't tolerate vandalism or solo editing without any collaboration. They'll have to discuss things nicely and work them out. Just expressing dissatisfaction isn't enough.-- Brangifer (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it was 174.22.181.116 (talk · contribs) reverting mention of climate change at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It seems to me that this activity (which they've been warned about) falls under discretionary sanctions. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

They have deleted far more than that. Vandalism can't be tolerated. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

RE:Gettysburg Address

Sir,

It is such a lamentable regret that you failed to report me in spite of my unanswerable objections to your source, as I have little doubt that it would have pleased you immensely to have unnecessarily silenced me when no response from you was possible; I would by no means have had any pleasure of yours forfeited by your negligence or an undeserved regard of cordiality towards me.

As to this so-called statement of Cornell University that you have so kindly proffered, I regrettably maintain some reservations that lead me to suspect that a statement from a daily college newspaper that is entirely student-run and one that avowedly is and always has been completely independent from Cornell University cannot be with sufficient propriety considered a reliable statement from said university. You can, at your leisure, compare your source's reliability to one that I humbly present.

I am,

Sir,

Your most humble servant,

--Herb-Sewell (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Excellent reply! I love it. You have a way with words, and your source is good enough for the article. Yes, as you may have noted, I did not use the source I mentioned because it would not qualify as a RS. Your source, OTOH, is good. Nice find. Keep up the good work. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Etiquette

Hello, I think you would have asked me first if I do not oppose that you have "Strike throughs added by me for clarity.", I also think it made a bad beginning and affected some of the editors towards negative approach. Thank you. Ryanspir (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ryan. I can see your consternation and do apologize that my refactoring seems to have offended you. I'm sorry about that. I guess I should have asked. As far as the responses, I really doubt it's had any real effect. All responses have been negative, and most of them were made before my refactoring. I felt that clarity was important and just did it the way I would have done it if I had started such an RfC. I'll try to be more careful in the future. My apologies again. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	For your tireless work on articles with WP:FRINGE problems. bobrayner (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Bob! -- Brangifer (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

Welcome to Misplaced Pages and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Pseudoscience are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Please don't template experienced users. We've been here about the same length of time, I have quite a few more edits than you, and have survived (and been vindicated) at an Arbcom proceeding, so we've both been around. We may have different styles of editing and commenting, including how we leave subject matter and sources on talk pages to be used for content if someone wishes to use it, and a bit of respect and "minding your own business" might be appropriate. I don't follow you around and hide your comments. If you were familiar with the way that particular talk page has been used, you'd know I was documenting that the term pseudoscience is legitimate, and that RS note that pseudoscience exists, all for the benefit of an editor (User:Widescreen) who's been giving trouble on that talk page. Now she's been indef banned, but she no doubt still reads it. The sources can also be used for content, and the talk page is also used for that purpose, IOW as a respository for suggested sources and content. When I get more time I may do it myself. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Templating experienced editors is a condescending move. Please don't do it. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. Whether Scjessey is right or not, his method leaves a lot to be desired. It doesn't assume good faith, and it's certainly not very collegial. It's just plain insulting and doesn't create good relationships.

Otherwise we actually share many scientific, skeptical, and political POV! -- Brangifer (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Please stop using talk pages such as Talk:Pseudoscience for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. If you are an "experienced user", you should know talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article. If you need a dumping ground for sources, look no further than your own user space. Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Lovely response. Nice to meet such a welcoming editor. It makes editing here so much nicer.... I'm not sure whether your actions are outright uncivil, but they certainly aren't collegial. There is quite a bit of latitude in the interpretation of talk page abuse, and I'm not even close. When there is a difference of opinion on such a borderline issue, it's usually wisest to be collegial, rather than outright rude and confrontational. Your actions are very offensive and definitely violate AGF. Now if you were protecting Misplaced Pages from trolling, that would be another matter, but that's not even close. You may not care about whether you offend loyal and experienced editors, but I try not to do so if it can be helped. In that we're apparently quite different. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not a "borderline issue" at all. Dumping loosely-related text/sources on to a talk page without any sort of indication of intention makes it look like you are using the talk page as a forum to make some sort of point. That's just not appropriate. I'm sorry if you weren't happy about my terse response to your actions, but you reverted me after I appropriately hatted (not deleted, I might add) the sections you created. Please use article talk pages properly in the future, and restrict your freeform source dumping to your own user space (which is precisely what it's for). -- Scjessey (talk) 13:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

"Makes it look like" is the key here. That's exclusively from "your" viewpoint because you were not AGF and didn't know the context. You came to a page and stuck your nose into a situation without any knowledge of the context or history of what had been happening there, or who was watching. There had been controversy and an editor had been community banned, but was still watching. My actions were in a context. They weren't some willy nilly dumping. Sometimes the point happens to be to educate other editors, and providing sources helps them learn, and those sources may or may not be useful in the article, but there was at least the possibility. That's a matter for the involved (which wasn't you) editors to decide in a collaborative manner. If any of them thought I was misusing the talk page, they were welcome to say so. It's never happened to me before. The better procedure for you would have been to politely talk with me about it right here (or by email), rather than jump in and unilaterally treat a much older and more experienced editor with disrespect. We usually give each other a bit of latitude in these matters. It's only when dealing with disruptive editors, especially those pushing some fringe agenda using unreliable sources, that we hat or delete comments. Just show a little consideration next time.

It's good you aren't one of my pupils who treated me that way. Suddenly we would have had to tighten up the talk page rules into such an ironclad thing that they would become extremely rigid, boring, and rather uninformative. Yes, be don't want them to become a free for all chat forum, but neither do we want editing to no longer be an interesting and fun experience. We are a community of editors, we get to know each other, and we do share a bit. Occasionally it might get a slight bit beyond strictly the absolute essentials of editing, but we allow some of that if it doesn't get out of hand. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should've done your due diligence and checked back in the article and talk page history. I have been an active editor on the article (and in related articles) for a long time. Hatting is routinely performed with "go nowhere" threads, such as the two you created, on thousands of article talk pages. So when you use "we", you are unreasonably talking on behalf of other editors who may not agree with you. Anyway, I see no further point in continuing this conversation, as long as you understand that I would do exactly the same thing in exactly the same situation. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see that you have occasionally commented there, but not enough that I ever noticed you. As far as "go nowhere" threads, you very quickly ensured that my comments couldn't go anywhere, only because you didn't see any value in them. What if someone else had? You censored me. My comments weren't trolling, spamming, or pushing of a fringe POV, and they were on topic. It was solely in your eyes that there was any problem (no one has EVER done that to me), and you created a problem when there wasn't one and alienated another editor. That was unnecessary. I hope that in the future you will use a different MO, because a repeat performance would not reflect good on you and would be harassment. There are better ways to achieve the same ends, unless your ends really are to insult others. I really doubt that. Collaboration, collegiality, civility, and AGF go hand in hand. Let's work toward better relations. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello

BullRangifer, in spite of supposed differences, I would like to express my gratitude to you. I love you.

Thank you for having been a part of my evolution.Pottinger's cats (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Have a great day. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

War on Women

Your recent editing history at War on Women shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- Reverting without discussing will get you blocked.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I had made several comments on the issues, but you didn't respond. Instead you'd start new threads, and showed that you weren't really dealing with my comments or concerns. You just kept repeating ideas that had been shot down by several others. You were the one who had been reverting others several times, in sequence. That is edit warring, and that's why you got the warning. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

• News and notes: Chapter furore over FDC knockbacks; First DC GLAM boot-camp

• In the media: Misplaced Pages's sexism; Yuri Gadyukin hoax

• Featured content: Wiki loves video games

• WikiProject report: Japanese WikiProject Baseball

• Traffic report: Most popular Misplaced Pages articles

• Arbitration report: Sexology closed; two open cases

• Recent research: Sentiment monitoring; UNESCO and systemic bias; and more

• Technology report: New notifications system deployed across Misplaced Pages

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Notifications box replacement prototypes released

Hey BullRangifer; Kaldari has finished scripting a set of potential replacements available to test and give feedback on. Please go to this thread for more detail on how to enable them. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

• News and notes: Candidates nominating for Foundation elections; Looking ahead to Wikimania 2014

• Technology report: Foundation successful in bid for larger Google subsidy

• Featured content: WikiCup update: full speed ahead!

• In the media: New Misplaced Pages for Schools edition; Anders Behring Breivik's Misplaced Pages contributions

• WikiProject report: Earn $100 in cash... and a button!

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

• News and notes: WMF–community ruckus on Wikimedia mailing list

• WikiProject report: Knock Out: WikiProject Mixed Martial Arts

• Featured content: A mushroom, a motorway, a Munich gallery, and a map

• In the media: PR firm accused of editing Misplaced Pages for government clients; can Misplaced Pages predict the stock market?

• Arbitration report: Race and politics opened; three open cases

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Christian Science

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Christian Science. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

• Foundation elections: Trustee candidates speak about Board structure, China, gender, global south, endowment

• WikiProject report: Classical Greece and Rome

• News and notes: Spanish Misplaced Pages leaps past one million articles

• In the media: Qworty incident continues

• Featured content: Up in the air

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Recent Energy Medicine Edits

This comment regarding Energy medicine has been moved here by myself, from my subpage for IPs. -- BR

Hello,

Still getting used to the UI and procedures here. Regarding edits and reversions on May22 to Energy Medicine by IP 76.121.150.157: After reading more about how content on an article tries to reflect the pervasive attitude perceived in society I understand better why the initial edits may have warranted reversion. However, as I'm sure you're aware, this praiseworthy pursuit can be hijacked by the presence of a vocal minority who is level-headed enough to escape reversion. In my experience on both sides of this fence I have found Energy Medicine, for some reason, to be extremely popular; though its physical effects (in a similar way as one's mood) may be difficult to objectify clinically.

I also partially surmised that Neutrality, according to Misplaced Pages, does not necessarily mean a non-derogatory account of all major view points but a boundary against peripheral, emotional, and poorly referenced view points or work that do not reflect the predominant view.

At this point I would like to suggest that neutrality might also refer to the responsibility of the predominant view (as pre-Copernican astronomy once was) to report its tenants, evidence and reasoning without resorting to employment of references to derogatory statements (or similar suppressive devices) about competing views (which The Church at the time did not). Such statements should not be necessary if the evidence and reasoning are sound and only furthers division among viewpoints.

In such an article as Energy Medicine, where the predominant view appears to be against it, a derogatory article may appear unavoidable but this is not the case. Many parts of this article are negative with respect to the topic yet perfectly acceptable considering the evidence presented. Likewise, there may be points from the proponents camp that appeal to the detractors. As someone once said: "Nobody is smart enough to be 100% wrong."

There is controversy on this topic and it is not so one-sided as this article makes it appear. Therefore, shouldn't the article admit this fairly and openly? It seems insufficient to simply declare those who maintain reasons to disagree to be 'unsophisticated', 'magical-thinkers'. Yes, there is clinical evidence that support the negative side(there is also valid evidence in support of the positive). However, clinical evidence is far from infallible, especially if the underlying assumptions are inadequate.

In the Vitalism article there is reference to theories of Emergence. The human body is certainly such a complex system as to warrant a more conscientious and diligent appraisal of its attributes using our most applicable analytical tools (i.e. Complex Systems Theory and Network Science). See the Dr. Iris Bell reference in one of the edits mentioned above.

My simplified argument is basically an appeal to ignorance over arrogance. Maintaining open avenues of investigation is what is at issue. It is insufficient to declare that the route of energy medicine investigation has been tested and found to be of no clinical benefit when many competent and rational researchers take issue with the manner that testing.

Finally, the edit regarding the History section of the Energy Medicine article describes a misused citation. The first sentence of the History section contains a reference to article (Jonas & Crawford) that is supposed to account for it. However, there can be no mistake that no such sentiment exists in this article, having read it twice myself. Therefore, please also uphold the removal of that reference from the support of that sentence.

---Or may we discuss the other reason(s) for your reversion of these edits; such as being considered vandalism or sole editorship without collaboration, or at the request of NeilN for example. I am new to these policies and this interface so please be slightly more explicit in your replies where these are concerned. (PS. I have read much(not all) of the talk guidelines).

Thanks, Kmpentland (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Please recognize that you have seen this thread and we can continue here. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Kmpentland, you also posted to my talk page. May I suggest having this discussion at Talk:Energy medicine as talk pages of articles are where discussions about article content are supposed to go. Reading the above, I'm not sure what specific changes you want made. It's always good to suggest specific changes to the text and a reason (short, if possible) for each change. --NeilN 01:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Temporary sandbox - Qworty/Young scandal

Sources covering the Qworty/Young scandal

• Andrew Leonard. Revenge, ego and the corruption of Misplaced Pages. Salon.com, May 17, 2013

• Andrew Leonard. Misplaced Pages cleans up its mess. Salon.com, May 21, 2013

• Andrew Leonard. Misplaced Pages’s anti-Pagan crusade. Salon.com, May 24, 2013

• Kyle Zhu. Revenge is Best Served On Misplaced Pages . PolicyMic.com, May 17, 2013

• Kathleen Geier. The unmasking of a troll, and Misplaced Pages’s Achilles’ heel. Washington Monthly, May 18, 2013

• Martha Nichols and Lorraine Berry. What Should We Do About Misplaced Pages? Talking Writing.com, May 20, 2013

• David Jay Brown. Biased Editing at Misplaced Pages Causes Concern Over Accuracy. SantaCruzPatch, May 22, 2013

• Jason Pitzl-Waters. Anti-Pagan Misplaced Pages Editor Outed by Salon.com. The Wild Hunt, May 22, 2013

• Nick Farrell. Wackypedia admits pagan purge. TechEye.net, May 22, 2013

Sources as refs using uniform style from "cite web" template

1. Leonard, Andrew (May 17, 2013). "Revenge, ego and the corruption of Misplaced Pages". Salon.com. Retrieved May 20, 2013.
2. Leonard, Andrew (May 21, 2013). "Misplaced Pages Cleans up its mess". Salon.com. Retrieved May 21, 2013.
3. Leonard, Andrew (May 24, 2013). "Misplaced Pages's anti-Pagan crusade". Salon.com. Retrieved May 24, 2013.
4. Zhu, Kyle (May 17, 2013). "Revenge is Best Served On Misplaced Pages". PolicyMic.com. Retrieved May 26, 2013.
5. Geier, Kathleen (May 18, 2013). "The unmasking of a troll, and Misplaced Pages's Achilles' heel". Washington Monthly. Retrieved May 26, 2013.
6. "What Should We Do About Misplaced Pages?". Talking Writing.com. May 20, 2013. Retrieved May 26, 2013. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)
7. Brown, David Jay (May 22, 2013). "Biased Editing at Misplaced Pages Causes Concern Over Accuracy". SantaCruzPatch. Retrieved May 26, 2013.
8. Pitzl-Waters, Jason (May 22, 2013). "Anti-Pagan Misplaced Pages Editor Outed by Salon.com". The Wild Hunt.org. Retrieved May 26, 2013.
9. Farrell, Nick (May 22, 2013). "Wackypedia admits pagan purge". TechEye.net. Retrieved May 26, 2013.

Please comment on Talk:BP

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:BP. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

• News and notes: First-ever community election for FDC positions

• In the media: Pagans complain about Qworty's anti-Pagan editing

• Foundation elections: Candidates talk about the Meta problem, the nation-based chapter model, world languages, and value for money

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Geographical Coordinates

• Featured content: Life of 2π

• Recent research: Motivations on the Persian Misplaced Pages; is science eight times more popular on the Spanish Misplaced Pages than the English Misplaced Pages?

• Technology report: Amsterdam hackathon: continuity, change, and stroopwafels

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 08:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for your help

Hi BullRangifer: I saw your as a member of the Project Qworty effort.

I would like to invite you to come to the Erica Andrews article to give your thoughts and wisdom to what has gone on. I was one of the main editors of the article. I researched a lot about Andrews' life and career and placed most of the information on the page. One day in comes Qworty, Little Green Rosetta and Coffeepusher. To cut a long story short, it became very ugly between me and them as Qworty, LGR were deleting information out of the article. They would claim there citation source was weak and even when I would prove to them that the information was factual through sources, it was never enough. The article became a hot battleground for them and me. It got ugly. Very ugly. I stepped away for a while as I really have no desire to fight on Misplaced Pages with anyone. Then I was very surprised to see Qworty being exposed for what he did and got banned. Shortly after that LGR got banned. So as part of Project Qworty, I returned to the Andrews article and replaced the information that they had deleted. However, now I'm running into yet the same arguments with Coffeepusher and Howicus. So I would really like to invite you to review my edits and what they've reverted back to. My edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Erica_Andrews&oldid=557673661.

The Andrews talk page contains my comments on my replacement of content per Project Qworty. They have claimed the content I have placed back is contentious. I have asked just what part of actual career achievements is contentious? Andrews really did win her titles, really did act in 2 movies, really did perform on stage, really did appear in music videos, and really did host shows and performed. Nothing I have placed there is malicious lies. I have not made up anything. I will agree that sometimes the source is not from a mainstream outlet like NY Times, Washington Post but it does not mean the information is erroneous or is contentious or are lies to libel Andrews. I would NEVER do that to anyone living or dead. The information has weight and carries value for a reader who is seeking to learn more about Andrews in her bio. My sole interest is to create a detailed article for this late entertainer so that fans or anyone who wants to learn about her can do so. I did a lot of research on Andrews and wish to share the information I have through the article. I have the greatest respect for the late Andrews and would never libel or create lies or tarnish her reputation in any way or to create an untrue persona of her. I hope you can chime in and make some sense so that the edit disputes can end. Thank you for your help. Lightspeedx (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)