This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Randolph Stone article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest and neutral point of view. |
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
The following is not appropriate WIkipedia content, mainly because this is an article about Stone; not about "polarity therapy", so everything below is basically WP:COATRACK. there are other issues, but that is enough to remove this from the article. I have copied it here for discussion.
In the following articles criticism as well as approval on Polarity therapy is scientifically founded:
The International Journal of Behavioral Medicine (2010) assesses Biofield therapies including Polarity asking "helpful of full of hype?" and comes to the conclusion that there is a need for further high-quality studies in this area. [1]
Global advances in health and medicine (2015) states that "research in human biofield studies including polarity therapy involving preclinical models promises a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying the efficacy of biofield therapies and will be important in guiding clinical protocols and integrating treatments with conventional medical therapies. [2]
Journal of clinical nursing (2013): "Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Fatigue was the most used scale specifically for the evaluation of fatigue. Pretreatment fatigue level may be an important risk factor to aggravate it during radiotherapy and decrease the quality of life. Five studies proposed interventions, all of them involving nonpharmacological therapies: cognitive-behavioural therapy associated with hypnosis, moderate-intensity physical exercises, stretching programmes, yoga and polarity therapy. The studies showed good results in relation to fatigue, physical and psychological aspects, and quality of life. CONCLUSION: Early detection of fatigue, using appropriate scales, is relevant to propose suitable treatments and achieve better clinical conditions, adherence and continuity of radiotherapy treatment, aiming to ensure more effective responses." [3]
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews (2014): "When respite care was compared to polarity therapy a significant effect was found in favour of polarity therapy for caregiver perceived stress (n = 38, MD 5.80, 95% CI 1.43 to 10.17), but not for other measures of psychological health and other caregiver outcomes." [4]
Alternative therapies in health and medicine (1999): "The actual identification (let alone measurement) of "healing energy" has been elusive and controversial. Although healing energy has been defined as "subtle" and "undetectable," preliminary research indicates that these descriptions may be inaccurate. OBJECTIVE: To assess the fluctuation of extremely high-frequency electromagnetic fields, or gamma rays, during Polarity therapy treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study suggests a consistent and dramatic decrease in the number of gamma rays measured in a subject's electromagnetic field during one type of alternative healing energy treatment (Polarity therapy). The authors strongly recommend the collection of additional data, especially on subjects with cancer, whose long-term survival might be enhanced as a result of the radiation hormesis effects of alternative energy therapies." [5]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |first=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |first=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |first=
(
help)
- Jytdog ( talk) 16:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to hear any ideas regarding how to expand the content of the article. It would be nice to have a lede and body with heading, I think we could accomplish that. Thoughts? The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 22:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this [1], can Jytdog please indicate to me where in the article it already says that Stone retired and moved to India? If you're referring to the clinic he had there, I believe that was in operation during the same period he had his practice in Chicago. He couldn't have been retired if he was running a clinic in India or elsewhere. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
In the section above entitled "inappropriate content on Wikipedia", discussion resulted in the decision to leave out coverage of Stone's ideas. Someone has decided to go against that consensus. Can they explain why? The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 13:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
(Outdent) I didn't need to. You did, when you said above that the article should be about Stone and not about his ideas. The paragraph you keep reinserting begins "Stone's ideas have been...", it is clearly about Stone's ideas and not Stone. I would be fine with the compromise of having it in the body of the article, where the other brief bit about his writings is, but you and the others up there refuse to compromise at all. YOU are the one who did not want this article to be about his ideas. I didn't even know this guy existed until a couple months ago and couldn't give two whits about polarity therapy, but I sure as hell do care about POV pushing and people turning articles into unbalanced slam pieces. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 05:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text.The lead exists to summarize the body. If you would like to discuss Stone's ideas a little bit and who and why people call them quackery etc, feel free to do so. Again from WP:LEAD,
According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy.Please get consensus before inserting it again. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
removed my own comment if that's allowed - it's a decent article but the name of one of his books is off also, doesn't this belong here? https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5be365255cfd79dc41e5dc90/t/5c05bbcfaa4a99f49168b0f3/1543879631850/Triune_Autonomic_Nervous_System_Article-Chitty.pdf
pretty obvious there is a direct contribution of people like Dr. Stone, Deepak Chopra, Walter Russell, E Graham Howe, Usui to something valid
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Randolph Stone article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest and neutral point of view. |
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
The following is not appropriate WIkipedia content, mainly because this is an article about Stone; not about "polarity therapy", so everything below is basically WP:COATRACK. there are other issues, but that is enough to remove this from the article. I have copied it here for discussion.
In the following articles criticism as well as approval on Polarity therapy is scientifically founded:
The International Journal of Behavioral Medicine (2010) assesses Biofield therapies including Polarity asking "helpful of full of hype?" and comes to the conclusion that there is a need for further high-quality studies in this area. [1]
Global advances in health and medicine (2015) states that "research in human biofield studies including polarity therapy involving preclinical models promises a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying the efficacy of biofield therapies and will be important in guiding clinical protocols and integrating treatments with conventional medical therapies. [2]
Journal of clinical nursing (2013): "Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Fatigue was the most used scale specifically for the evaluation of fatigue. Pretreatment fatigue level may be an important risk factor to aggravate it during radiotherapy and decrease the quality of life. Five studies proposed interventions, all of them involving nonpharmacological therapies: cognitive-behavioural therapy associated with hypnosis, moderate-intensity physical exercises, stretching programmes, yoga and polarity therapy. The studies showed good results in relation to fatigue, physical and psychological aspects, and quality of life. CONCLUSION: Early detection of fatigue, using appropriate scales, is relevant to propose suitable treatments and achieve better clinical conditions, adherence and continuity of radiotherapy treatment, aiming to ensure more effective responses." [3]
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews (2014): "When respite care was compared to polarity therapy a significant effect was found in favour of polarity therapy for caregiver perceived stress (n = 38, MD 5.80, 95% CI 1.43 to 10.17), but not for other measures of psychological health and other caregiver outcomes." [4]
Alternative therapies in health and medicine (1999): "The actual identification (let alone measurement) of "healing energy" has been elusive and controversial. Although healing energy has been defined as "subtle" and "undetectable," preliminary research indicates that these descriptions may be inaccurate. OBJECTIVE: To assess the fluctuation of extremely high-frequency electromagnetic fields, or gamma rays, during Polarity therapy treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study suggests a consistent and dramatic decrease in the number of gamma rays measured in a subject's electromagnetic field during one type of alternative healing energy treatment (Polarity therapy). The authors strongly recommend the collection of additional data, especially on subjects with cancer, whose long-term survival might be enhanced as a result of the radiation hormesis effects of alternative energy therapies." [5]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |first=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |first=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |first=
(
help)
- Jytdog ( talk) 16:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to hear any ideas regarding how to expand the content of the article. It would be nice to have a lede and body with heading, I think we could accomplish that. Thoughts? The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 22:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this [1], can Jytdog please indicate to me where in the article it already says that Stone retired and moved to India? If you're referring to the clinic he had there, I believe that was in operation during the same period he had his practice in Chicago. He couldn't have been retired if he was running a clinic in India or elsewhere. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
In the section above entitled "inappropriate content on Wikipedia", discussion resulted in the decision to leave out coverage of Stone's ideas. Someone has decided to go against that consensus. Can they explain why? The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 13:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
(Outdent) I didn't need to. You did, when you said above that the article should be about Stone and not about his ideas. The paragraph you keep reinserting begins "Stone's ideas have been...", it is clearly about Stone's ideas and not Stone. I would be fine with the compromise of having it in the body of the article, where the other brief bit about his writings is, but you and the others up there refuse to compromise at all. YOU are the one who did not want this article to be about his ideas. I didn't even know this guy existed until a couple months ago and couldn't give two whits about polarity therapy, but I sure as hell do care about POV pushing and people turning articles into unbalanced slam pieces. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 05:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text.The lead exists to summarize the body. If you would like to discuss Stone's ideas a little bit and who and why people call them quackery etc, feel free to do so. Again from WP:LEAD,
According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy.Please get consensus before inserting it again. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
removed my own comment if that's allowed - it's a decent article but the name of one of his books is off also, doesn't this belong here? https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5be365255cfd79dc41e5dc90/t/5c05bbcfaa4a99f49168b0f3/1543879631850/Triune_Autonomic_Nervous_System_Article-Chitty.pdf
pretty obvious there is a direct contribution of people like Dr. Stone, Deepak Chopra, Walter Russell, E Graham Howe, Usui to something valid