![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | A fact from Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 27 January 2017 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have issues with the sources. I'll run through them quickly then comment in more detail.
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help) - another rapid response{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help) m- Gorski's personal blog, see above.So, the editors of this article probably spend a lot less time than I do reading and editing articles on supplements, complementary and alternative medicine (SCAM, now rebranded "integrative" medicine). A lot of what we're seeing here is very familiar, especially the reference to primary studies promoting improbable results that are contradicted by much larger bodies of work. Prayer, for example, has been tested many times, enough that a Cochrane review is possible.
The authors conclude that due to various limitations in the trials included in this review (such as unclear randomising procedures and the reporting of many different outcomes and illnesses) it is only possible to state that intercessory prayer is neither significantly beneficial nor harmful for those who are sick. Further studies which are better designed and reported would be necessary to draw firmer conclusions.
Now, in an article on studies on intercessory prayer we have time to go into this and discuss the lamentable quality of the research base. Peter C. Gøtzsche writes of the dangers of publishing and citing joke studies like Leibovici's. The danger, then, is WP:SYN: teasing content out of primary sources, many of which will by definition be highly unreliable because the intent it so show just how unreliable they are. Guy ( Help!) 15:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Guy, I have stayed away for a few days as I wanted yo reply dispassionately. Your implication that you know more than everyone else so we should all defer to you is inconsistent with wiki-policies and irritating. The idea that the journal is an unreliable source for its self-description or its content is ridiculous. Presenting either as fact would be problematic and should be changed, but excluding anything from the journal is not NPOV. As for citing studies, when I mention a study I cite it so that readers can easily find it for themselves if they wish. I don't think what is published in Explore is reasonable / reliable / scientifically valid, etc, but I think providing the reference is good practice. Yes, they are primary and secondary sources are needed that evaluate them for the reference in the first place, but that does not prohibit the reference being provided at the editor's discretion. If you choose to provide such citations then that is your choice, but removing them is neither helpful nor improving content - it is just overriding others' preferences with your own. As for objecting to blogs by academics who have published in the field, re-read WP:RS/SPS. Regarding intercessory prayer, the issue was that the executive editor, publishing in that capacity, offered a pseudoscientific re-interpretation of quantum mechanics to support a ridiculous notion of retrospective prayer leading to shorter hospitalisations which had already finished, and got taken to task for it. All three editors are proponents of ridiculous ideas (provable by RS) and as Hassani noted (also a published academic on pseudoscience) it raises questions when the peer-review it claims to undertake is under their control. As for it being "horribly bad practice to source facts in a controversial articles to the subject itself," we are talking of the subject as sources of assertions about itself, which are both necessary for an NPOV article and the best possible source of their beliefs. Presenting things from them as fact would be wrong; presenting them as what they say and accompanied with RS characterisation of the real situation is appropriate editing practice. I am disappointed to see an editor of your experience misapplying policy in this way. EdChem ( talk) 03:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
This article still contains blogs on the reference list. I agree with other editors (see above) who finds this to be problematic. I would encourage editors to cite major periodicals or peer-reviewed sources.-- Hawol ( talk) 15:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I added a section heading for Criticism because it is not clear that the bulk of the article content is critical unless one reads it in detail and I think it needs to be made plain, it's what section headings are for. But another editor deleted it on the grounds that it invites a countering "praise" section. I disagree with that - sources for criticism are far more likely to pass WP:RS than sources for praise and woo merchants will be trying to sneak in the praise anyway. What do folks think about restoring that section heading? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 18:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Anybody know why this is not on the list of Nonrecommended Periodicals of QuackWatch? -- Randykitty ( talk) 21:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I have nominated the article for DYK. It has expanded five-fold, and with the AfD closed is now eligible for nomination. I named as expanders myself, Jytdog, Randykitty, and Headbomb. If anyone else believes they should be included, or any of the three editors I mentioned don't wish to be credited, please say something. EdChem ( talk) 15:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Headbomb: I made additions that noted refinement would be appropriate, that doesn't make my work "random crap" nor a "long-winded attack page." Please bear in mind where it started, the context of the AfD and NJournals controversy, and the views that anything the journal says is unreliable even in describing itself and when presented as its self-description rather than as an objectively factual statement. I don't think all the recent changes that have been made are improvements but I haven't fought about them nor criticised those making them, and I would appreciate being offered the same courtesy.
@ Randykitty: it will likely be at least a couple of weeks working through DYK processes, this will bring in fresh views (I hope), and lead to improvements.
General comment / request: Surely we (collectively) can have disagreements without needing to make comments which reflect negatively on editors, even if only by implication rather than by editor-focused comments? Can we at least agree we are all pursuing quality encyclopaedic content for readers? EdChem ( talk) 03:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
This publication on Explore Investigating the Fit and Accuracy of Alleged Mediumistic Writing: A Case Study of Chico Xavier’s Letters was commented positively by brazilian media, e.g., here and here. But brazilian science journalists says that " no", and " A conclusão, a esta altura, deve ser óbvia: o artigo não só falha em estabelecer o que parte da mídia diz que estabelece – a realidade da comunicação de Chico Xavier com os mortos – como ainda é fraco demais, até mesmo, para cumprir a tarefa mais modesta que lhe foi dada pelos próprios autores: a de enfraquecer a tese científica dominante de que a mente não passa de uma função do cérebro." and no again. The last author, a brazilian parapsychologist pt:Alexander Moreira-Almeida, replies. Ixocactus ( talk) 04:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | A fact from Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 27 January 2017 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have issues with the sources. I'll run through them quickly then comment in more detail.
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help) - another rapid response{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help) m- Gorski's personal blog, see above.So, the editors of this article probably spend a lot less time than I do reading and editing articles on supplements, complementary and alternative medicine (SCAM, now rebranded "integrative" medicine). A lot of what we're seeing here is very familiar, especially the reference to primary studies promoting improbable results that are contradicted by much larger bodies of work. Prayer, for example, has been tested many times, enough that a Cochrane review is possible.
The authors conclude that due to various limitations in the trials included in this review (such as unclear randomising procedures and the reporting of many different outcomes and illnesses) it is only possible to state that intercessory prayer is neither significantly beneficial nor harmful for those who are sick. Further studies which are better designed and reported would be necessary to draw firmer conclusions.
Now, in an article on studies on intercessory prayer we have time to go into this and discuss the lamentable quality of the research base. Peter C. Gøtzsche writes of the dangers of publishing and citing joke studies like Leibovici's. The danger, then, is WP:SYN: teasing content out of primary sources, many of which will by definition be highly unreliable because the intent it so show just how unreliable they are. Guy ( Help!) 15:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Guy, I have stayed away for a few days as I wanted yo reply dispassionately. Your implication that you know more than everyone else so we should all defer to you is inconsistent with wiki-policies and irritating. The idea that the journal is an unreliable source for its self-description or its content is ridiculous. Presenting either as fact would be problematic and should be changed, but excluding anything from the journal is not NPOV. As for citing studies, when I mention a study I cite it so that readers can easily find it for themselves if they wish. I don't think what is published in Explore is reasonable / reliable / scientifically valid, etc, but I think providing the reference is good practice. Yes, they are primary and secondary sources are needed that evaluate them for the reference in the first place, but that does not prohibit the reference being provided at the editor's discretion. If you choose to provide such citations then that is your choice, but removing them is neither helpful nor improving content - it is just overriding others' preferences with your own. As for objecting to blogs by academics who have published in the field, re-read WP:RS/SPS. Regarding intercessory prayer, the issue was that the executive editor, publishing in that capacity, offered a pseudoscientific re-interpretation of quantum mechanics to support a ridiculous notion of retrospective prayer leading to shorter hospitalisations which had already finished, and got taken to task for it. All three editors are proponents of ridiculous ideas (provable by RS) and as Hassani noted (also a published academic on pseudoscience) it raises questions when the peer-review it claims to undertake is under their control. As for it being "horribly bad practice to source facts in a controversial articles to the subject itself," we are talking of the subject as sources of assertions about itself, which are both necessary for an NPOV article and the best possible source of their beliefs. Presenting things from them as fact would be wrong; presenting them as what they say and accompanied with RS characterisation of the real situation is appropriate editing practice. I am disappointed to see an editor of your experience misapplying policy in this way. EdChem ( talk) 03:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
This article still contains blogs on the reference list. I agree with other editors (see above) who finds this to be problematic. I would encourage editors to cite major periodicals or peer-reviewed sources.-- Hawol ( talk) 15:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I added a section heading for Criticism because it is not clear that the bulk of the article content is critical unless one reads it in detail and I think it needs to be made plain, it's what section headings are for. But another editor deleted it on the grounds that it invites a countering "praise" section. I disagree with that - sources for criticism are far more likely to pass WP:RS than sources for praise and woo merchants will be trying to sneak in the praise anyway. What do folks think about restoring that section heading? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 18:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Anybody know why this is not on the list of Nonrecommended Periodicals of QuackWatch? -- Randykitty ( talk) 21:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I have nominated the article for DYK. It has expanded five-fold, and with the AfD closed is now eligible for nomination. I named as expanders myself, Jytdog, Randykitty, and Headbomb. If anyone else believes they should be included, or any of the three editors I mentioned don't wish to be credited, please say something. EdChem ( talk) 15:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Headbomb: I made additions that noted refinement would be appropriate, that doesn't make my work "random crap" nor a "long-winded attack page." Please bear in mind where it started, the context of the AfD and NJournals controversy, and the views that anything the journal says is unreliable even in describing itself and when presented as its self-description rather than as an objectively factual statement. I don't think all the recent changes that have been made are improvements but I haven't fought about them nor criticised those making them, and I would appreciate being offered the same courtesy.
@ Randykitty: it will likely be at least a couple of weeks working through DYK processes, this will bring in fresh views (I hope), and lead to improvements.
General comment / request: Surely we (collectively) can have disagreements without needing to make comments which reflect negatively on editors, even if only by implication rather than by editor-focused comments? Can we at least agree we are all pursuing quality encyclopaedic content for readers? EdChem ( talk) 03:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
This publication on Explore Investigating the Fit and Accuracy of Alleged Mediumistic Writing: A Case Study of Chico Xavier’s Letters was commented positively by brazilian media, e.g., here and here. But brazilian science journalists says that " no", and " A conclusão, a esta altura, deve ser óbvia: o artigo não só falha em estabelecer o que parte da mídia diz que estabelece – a realidade da comunicação de Chico Xavier com os mortos – como ainda é fraco demais, até mesmo, para cumprir a tarefa mais modesta que lhe foi dada pelos próprios autores: a de enfraquecer a tese científica dominante de que a mente não passa de uma função do cérebro." and no again. The last author, a brazilian parapsychologist pt:Alexander Moreira-Almeida, replies. Ixocactus ( talk) 04:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)