→COI note at Talk:Acupuncture: Direct and personal financial harm caused by the content of a Wikipedia article equals a clear conflict of interest regarding that article. |
Sorry for the delayed notice. I accidentally posted it to the wrong page. :( |
||
Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
::::: For example, a person who practices acupuncture for pay has a potential COI when editing acupuncture articles, particularly if they do so in an overtly promotional manner. The abstract principles here are straightforward. I have no idea what you have or haven't seen, nor what reasons there might be for that. --[[User:Joel B. Lewis|JBL]] ([[User_talk:Joel_B._Lewis|talk]]) 01:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC) |
::::: For example, a person who practices acupuncture for pay has a potential COI when editing acupuncture articles, particularly if they do so in an overtly promotional manner. The abstract principles here are straightforward. I have no idea what you have or haven't seen, nor what reasons there might be for that. --[[User:Joel B. Lewis|JBL]] ([[User_talk:Joel_B._Lewis|talk]]) 01:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::::As I explained at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Acupuncture: not sure what to do here]], our [[accupunture]] article currently says ''"Acupuncture is a pseudoscience because the theories and practices of TCM are not based on scientific knowledge"''. The key here is that Middle 8, like all acupuncturists, suffers direct financial harm from the fact that our acupuncture article documents through [[WP:MEDRS]]-compliant sources that it doesn't matter where you stick the needles in, and that it doesn't even matter ''whether'' you stick the needles in -- the outcome is the same. Direct and personal financial harm caused by the content of a Wikipedia article equals a clear conflict of interest regarding that article. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 01:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC) |
::::::As I explained at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Acupuncture: not sure what to do here]], our [[accupunture]] article currently says ''"Acupuncture is a pseudoscience because the theories and practices of TCM are not based on scientific knowledge"''. The key here is that Middle 8, like all acupuncturists, suffers direct financial harm from the fact that our acupuncture article documents through [[WP:MEDRS]]-compliant sources that it doesn't matter where you stick the needles in, and that it doesn't even matter ''whether'' you stick the needles in -- the outcome is the same. Direct and personal financial harm caused by the content of a Wikipedia article equals a clear conflict of interest regarding that article. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 01:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC) |
||
== ANI Notice == |
|||
[[File:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Acupuncture: not sure what to do here|Acupuncture: not sure what to do here]]. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> [[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 01:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:38, 8 April 2019
BEWARE. People have recently tried to email me, but my own incompetence has meant this isn't the way to get in touch at the moment. Ask me to supply some contact details, and if I trust you I might. If lurkers can make this tidier, please feel free.
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Hi Roxy the dog, as you've seen I've rewritten the whole context bit of the YfTP article. What now stands out is how poor the 'Research' core of the article is, despite the list of systematic review articles it cites. There are actually many systematic reviews available, and finding one's way through them isn't easy. We ought however to use the best of them to show that there is quite a lot of good evidence for benefits and mechanisms, not leaving out the many lacunae but showing there is the beginning of knowledge. How to do that? Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the work you are doing there, I was particularly satisfied by that highlighted edit. I have a couple of problems, the main one being my inability to write encyclopeadic material. A more concerning problem is that when the word 'therapy' is used, my WP:MEDRS sixth sense gets triggered, I get all worried that silly efficacy claims are made by believers in that therapy, often far in excess of what can be supported by wiki suitable sources. I agree that yoga has potential health benefits, but no more than any other exercise regimen, and I doubt that we can source specific medrs health claims. I wonder if we have an article Exercise for therapeutic purposes? which ought to cover yoga too, if it exists. (I checked btw.) Not sure how I can help further, but it'll stay watchlisted. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Chiswick Chap Not that I want to do anything about it, but we do have such an article. It is called Physiotherapy. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Chiswick Chap Not that I want to do anything about it, but we do have such an article. It is called Physiotherapy. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deletion of J. Mark McWatters Page
You mentioned in the edit history that you thought this page would not be deleted. Can you explain why? As creator if I do not want the page published anymore is there a recourse for me to take to get this deleted?PublikTrust (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Because McWhatters is notable as wikipedia defines it. I cannot think of a reason for it to be deleted, and as the creator of the page you have no special rights. The page is not going to be deleted.
- I look forward to your reply to the question you have been asked on your Talk page regarding WP:COI on your part. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Roxy, maybe you'll be o.k. with removing {{Science}} if I explain how it came about. A few years back, there was a discussion at Template talk:Science#Science sidebar about this navbox. Everyone agreed that it failed the guidelines for navigation templates, and it should be deleted. However, there is no deletion criterion that allows deletion of a template simply because it is no good, so I undertook to remove links to it and see what the reaction was. Some were restored, and other editors made the template even more bloated by adding stuff like glossaries. So I'm trying a new approach - improving the template by drastically reducing the bloat. Only the highest-level links are left. I took out skeptical movement for a few reasons: it's one step removed from skepticism, which itself is part of scientific method. And according to WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, a navbox box should not be transcluded on pages it doesn't link to.
This article already has two much more appropriate navboxes - {{Philosophy of science}} and {{Skepticism}}. If you really want a sidebar, you could consider converting {{Skepticism}} into one. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- I knew a rock magnetist on a sciencey forum once upon a time. I bet it's too much of a coincidence. I do bow to your obvious expertise in this area, and wont be reverting again. best -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
FYI
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RealScienceGeek --Guy Macon (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ha, I saw this on the noticeboard before I received this notification. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Ken Ham
"This is how we do this across the project. It would take you years to fix." Can you give me some examples?OlJa 19:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Of course. Ken Ham. you are welcome. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 19:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- This is obviously not helping. "Some examples". Being delibarately difficult is never going to make your life easier.OlJa 20:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!OlJa 02:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- For the record, this user managed to get himself blocked twice in a few days for tendentious editing on AiG. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Four blocks for edit warring so far. If he edit wars again I intend on seeking an indefinite block under our Slow Learner rule... --Guy Macon (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, you seem to have missed the ping on my talk page. Can you please [look at the diffs] that you're reverting and note that you're changing the page to the vandalised version? It's not great as someone who's new to reverting vandalism to be accused of it myself when trying to fix a page, especially when my messages seem to be being ignored! vwilding talk 11:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Very sorry. See your Talk page. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Alperton
What's so *bad* aboot me dialect? Us Scots dinnae complain aboot the Yorkshire dialect, or the Cockney dialect, or the Liverpool dialect... 37.228.231.151 (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Reverted edit on Parapsychology
May I ask why you reverted my edit on Parapsychology?
- You may, but you need to learn to sign your posts on Talk pages like this. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
April 2019
Hello, I'm CyanoTex. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Remedy Entertainment— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. CyanoTex (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- You seem confused CyanoTex. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Edit on Ayurveda article
Hi Roxy, you just reverted the edits on page Ayurveda. Earlier the statement was "there is no scientific evidence in Ayurveda." I have given some website links in research section of the page to support that there is less scientific evidence in Ayurveda. The other general statement with reference of a book is that "Ayurveda is considered pseudoscientific." This is opinion of author of that book. Based upon that book on psychology, which is not related to Ayurveda, how can you state that Ayurveda is considered pseudoscientific? So I modified the language as it is opinion of that particular author. I think stating a system of medicine psudoscientific based upon merely a book reference may not be neutral statement. Please provide more references stating that Ayurveda is pseudoscience. In the research section, the website links given are of some good quality journals linked in PubMed and some database with Ayurved research articles. have you seen those links? Please go though the links and then we can discuss this further. Thank you.
- Please learn to sign your posts on Talk pages. Thanks. Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
COI note at Talk:Acupuncture
Hi Roxy -- re your revert[1]: as I mentioned in my ES[2], it's not possible for an acu'ist to have a COI for acupuncture, per recent RfC (in which you participated, and the result of which was previously mentioned to you[3]). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 08:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- That's not what the RfC says. It rules out a general COI assumption for everyone practicing alternative medicine, but it doesn't say no one can have a COI with specific articles. --mfb (talk) 10:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- The RfC says "no" to the question "Do practitioners of alternative medicine (Acupuncture [...] etc.) have a conflict of interest with regard to content describing their field of practice?". So acupuncturists can't have a COI for acupuncture, nor yoga teachers for yoga, and so for any broad professional area (pls read discussion if in any doubt of this). In specific cases, sure, e.g. Bikram Choudhury would have one for Bikram yoga. But -- apart from being a practitioner -- I can't imagine any other way someone could have a COI for a broad area like acupuncture, can you? --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 11:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC); addendum 14:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- This is unambiguously wrong about the conclusion of the RfC. The negation of "Is X necessarily the case?" is "X is not necessarily the case"; it absolutely is not "X is never the case." Anyone perusing the RfC close and the actual responses to the RfC can likewise see that there is 0 support for the false interpretation you are putting forward here. --JBL (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- So again, how would an editor have such a COI? And why haven't we seen that tag, and COI/N cases, with multiple other fields? --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 00:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC); addendum 00:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- For example, a person who practices acupuncture for pay has a potential COI when editing acupuncture articles, particularly if they do so in an overtly promotional manner. The abstract principles here are straightforward. I have no idea what you have or haven't seen, nor what reasons there might be for that. --JBL (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- As I explained at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Acupuncture: not sure what to do here, our accupunture article currently says "Acupuncture is a pseudoscience because the theories and practices of TCM are not based on scientific knowledge". The key here is that Middle 8, like all acupuncturists, suffers direct financial harm from the fact that our acupuncture article documents through WP:MEDRS-compliant sources that it doesn't matter where you stick the needles in, and that it doesn't even matter whether you stick the needles in -- the outcome is the same. Direct and personal financial harm caused by the content of a Wikipedia article equals a clear conflict of interest regarding that article. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- For example, a person who practices acupuncture for pay has a potential COI when editing acupuncture articles, particularly if they do so in an overtly promotional manner. The abstract principles here are straightforward. I have no idea what you have or haven't seen, nor what reasons there might be for that. --JBL (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- So again, how would an editor have such a COI? And why haven't we seen that tag, and COI/N cases, with multiple other fields? --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 00:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC); addendum 00:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- This is unambiguously wrong about the conclusion of the RfC. The negation of "Is X necessarily the case?" is "X is not necessarily the case"; it absolutely is not "X is never the case." Anyone perusing the RfC close and the actual responses to the RfC can likewise see that there is 0 support for the false interpretation you are putting forward here. --JBL (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- The RfC says "no" to the question "Do practitioners of alternative medicine (Acupuncture [...] etc.) have a conflict of interest with regard to content describing their field of practice?". So acupuncturists can't have a COI for acupuncture, nor yoga teachers for yoga, and so for any broad professional area (pls read discussion if in any doubt of this). In specific cases, sure, e.g. Bikram Choudhury would have one for Bikram yoga. But -- apart from being a practitioner -- I can't imagine any other way someone could have a COI for a broad area like acupuncture, can you? --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 11:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC); addendum 14:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Acupuncture: not sure what to do here. Guy Macon (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)