This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Trick or Treatment? article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm concerned that the selection of quotes for this article don't meet Wikipedia standards for NPOV. While the quotes are properly sourced, they present a POV that is pro-Singh, anti-alternative medicine. If those quotes were balanced with quotes from other news sources that presented an opposing view, then we would have a balanced article. As it stands now the article is slanted. -- Whoosit ( talk) 18:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know why a statement of fact about this book: "Although the book's website - created in 2008 and updated in April 2013 - promises to give references ("over the coming weeks") for the book's claims, so far, in 2013, it has completely failed to provide any references, except for two of the six chapters, and none for the appendix." [1] which sheds light onto one particular aspect of the book - namely that the authors have not provided evidence - has been deleted by Bobrayner. Has he the power to decide what is important? A statement of fact about something that not many people know is not an improvement? Why not? Because he says so? Is this typical of wikipedia? That those with a strong agenda have the power to delete statements of fact because it doesn't support their opinions? It'd be good to know - and to let the whole world know. Johntosco ( talk) 19:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Alexbrn, this looks like you clutching at straws. I have given the book's website as reference. Is the book's website (which was written by the same authors) not a reliable source for the book's lack of references? Is it typical of you to check everything those who don't agree with you have written? Is it typical of you NOT to read well the posts, and accuse people of not providing sources, when those sources are obviously there? Johntosco ( talk) 19:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean what source is complaining about the book's lack of follow-up? I was merely pointing out a fact. They promised in 2009 to publish their references (in the following weeks) and they haven't done so in 2013. I believe that when a book claims to be evidence-based it should provide the evidence. And I believe people should know that they are NOT providing the evidence for their claims. If it was a novel it wouldn't matter. But maybe you don't agree. Johntosco ( talk) 21:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
That's good to know mate. So an encyclopedia that boasts about everyone being able to edit it, as long as they provide reliable references, is a TOTAL, ABSOLUTE LIE. Proof, evidence don't mean a thing in wikipedia, and certainly nothing to Alexbrn. Talk about agendas. I wonder if you and Bobrayner get a kick out of having the power to delete proven things. In my youth we called it 1984. Good work! Don't worry! Nobody will know the truth. Some people are bent on hiding it. I repeat, good work! Congratulate Bobrayner and all those who dislike the truth when it doesn't suit them. Johntosco ( talk) 21:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Please! Don't take me for an idiot. You were not asking for a reliable reference - I've already provided that, the book's website. You were asking for a source that has been given some notability by being at least mentioned in independent sources. That's not the same. And please do not begin lying about what you asked for. Johntosco ( talk) 21:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Again taking me for an idiot. The position is CLEARLY advanced by the source itself. I repeat - you don't seem to have understood, or maybe you are pretending not to have understood - that the SOURCE ITSELF says: "we have decided to provide a fuller list of references on this website. The list of references on this site is not yet complete, but we will load them chapter by chapter over the coming weeks." Wasn't it clear when I gave the reference the first time? Wasn't it clear when I gave the reference the second time? Do I have to give the reference a third time? OK. here it is. http://www.trickortreatment.com/references.html Published in 2009. But I suppose those who dislike the truth have a different interpretation of the meaning of "over the coming weeks" Johntosco ( talk) 21:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
so far, in 2013, it has completely failed to provide any references
There is an easy solution for that. You - or Bobrayner - suggest how to say the same thing (the fact that they haven't provided the promised references in over four years) in a more neutral tone, instead of deleting it. I am open to suggestions. But neither him nor you seem to be interested in including this fact. As I said, you are bent on hiding the truth. And I must say that you are very good at it. By the way, I believe this is part of wikipedia's guidelines: "When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can instead of just deleting it." Does it apply to him or you? Apparently not. Johntosco ( talk) 21:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Alexbrn. There is a source that has been mentioned in independent sources and complains about the lack of references in "Trick or Treatment" It is a book called "Halloween Science" and it has been mentioned in "The Quackometer" http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/04/homeopaths-attempt-to-rubbish-ernst-and.html by the publications of the UK parliament http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/homeopathy/ucm3302.htm and a long etc. I have asked for mediation because I think your deletion of my contribution is unwarranted and biased. Johntosco ( talk) 09:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Alexbrn. 1) It is you who is edit warring. 2) I didn't mention User:Bobrayner and User:Pcabotto because they are not edit warring as you are. 3) Insulting Pcabotto is a ... really really interesting approach. 4) The dispute seems to be between you, who refuses to accept the evidence, and to include it in the article, and me who has provided it. Johntosco ( talk) 09:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Blackguard SF. could you please clarify what you mean by: "Original research unsupported by third party source". The lack of references in a book's website has to be supported by whom? Please explain. You could support it. ALL you have to do is go to the website and check it.Since the website is given as an external link in the article, I believe it is very simple. Johntosco ( talk) 09:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Blackguard SF. I don't think it is very polite of you to reply on your Talk page instead of here. Furthermore, it is not original research as I pointed out since the lack of references was mentioned in the book "Halloween Science", and has been recognised by Ernst and Singh on their website. Johntosco ( talk) 09:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
1) I had already given some references on 09:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC) 2) Please check http://www.homeopathyworkedforme.org/#/halloween-science/4533482584 where the lack of references in 'Trick or Treatment' is mentioned more than once. 3) Please also check http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b2783?tab=responses where Ernst himself acknowledges the lack of references in his reply of 26 July 2009. Johntosco ( talk) 09:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok. Let's call it an article, an essay. Whatever you want. Important enough to have been mentioned in the BMJ, by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committe. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=85nEQjUyCPAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false and by the journalist Martin Walker. http://www.slingshotpublications.com/reviews/reviews-dirty-medicine-the-handbook Johntosco ( talk) 09:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
So piecing together what the sources say, we have something like this:
A homeopath, William Alderson, self-published a 142-page book attempting to "rubbish" Trick or Treatment.[ref] Andy Lewis of the Quackometer blog called it a "dismal critique" destined to become an exemplar of the Dunning-Kruger effect,[ref] and Ernst said that Alderson's criticism, that the book lacked references, showed a failure to understand the nature of popular science publishing.[ref]
However, I don't think this really rises above the level of the trivial, and so am not inclined to include it. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 09:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Look Alexbrn. I am tired. Let's end the charade there. How dare you or Blackguard SF say that my contribution was a POV or original research? It was neither. It was a simple observation about the book's website. Observation which anyone and everyone can check. You and him know the tricks of wikipedia which I don't so, Congratulations!. As anyone who reads Blackguard SF's talk page, he is not neutral, nor are you. I am also fed up with your lies. You know very well that what I wanted to include was the lack of references in the book's website and not the rubbish you have accused me of wanting to include on 09:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC) You also know - so I don't see why you have to lie about what I wanted to include - that this lack of references is important, for a book that claims to be evidence-based. So, if anyone who is neutral wants to mediate, fine. Otherwise , I grant you the victory. You have managed to keep an observation which was inconvenient for you personally (talk about POV!) out of the article. The only thing remaining for me is to wish you and Blackguard SF luck in your future attempts to destroy contributions which you don't like. Johntosco ( talk) 11:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I have undone some original research following wikipedia guidelines. However, Blackguard SF says - without explaining why - that it has been done against consensus, policy, mediation and talk page discussion. What talk page discussion? Has there been any talk page discussion about the contents of the book? What consensus? What policy? Which mediation? Doesn't he have to explain? Johntosco ( talk) 21:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't see the need for being insulted by Blackguard SF. Nor do I see him replying to my point, What talk page discussion? Has there been any talk page discussion about the contents of the book? What consensus? What policy? Which mediation? He still refuses to say why the contents page is not original research Johntosco ( talk) 23:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
References
My entry was removed by
user:Alexbrn the originator of the current text, changed from:
The BCA eventually dropped the case after a ruling on the meaning of Singh's article went against them.
to referencing the guardian as saying:
In 2010, after 2 years, the BCA dropped the case after the court of the appeal found that Singh was expressing opinion, rather than stating facts. The presiding judges commented that "this litigation has almost certainly had a chilling effect on public debate which might otherwise have assisted potential patients to make informed choices about the possible use of chiropractic".
This entry is implicating that the Guardian (and other pseudoscience rejecting media) saw this as only a technical win for Singh (or even worse), and no implication whatsoever on the BCA practices, besides 'opinion'.
Actually the article explicitly and carefully pointed out that his claims where upheld by other bodies, and that this was a victory for Singh. The tone and the content are in fact embracing Singh's words in the book, which is the prominent mainstream view.
Since Wikipedia has a clear
policy about pseudoscience (WP:Fringe), which states:
... and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately...
... editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description or prominence of the mainstream views.
Please return my edit which added:
The Guardian noted that Singh had been sued because he had spoken out against chiropractors "for making claims the Advertising Standards Authority has ruled can no longer be made."
Otherwise, the article is promoting chiropractics, a trait clearly marked in the Wikipedia, and with no doubt, as pseudoscience. פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 09:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Trick or Treatment? article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm concerned that the selection of quotes for this article don't meet Wikipedia standards for NPOV. While the quotes are properly sourced, they present a POV that is pro-Singh, anti-alternative medicine. If those quotes were balanced with quotes from other news sources that presented an opposing view, then we would have a balanced article. As it stands now the article is slanted. -- Whoosit ( talk) 18:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know why a statement of fact about this book: "Although the book's website - created in 2008 and updated in April 2013 - promises to give references ("over the coming weeks") for the book's claims, so far, in 2013, it has completely failed to provide any references, except for two of the six chapters, and none for the appendix." [1] which sheds light onto one particular aspect of the book - namely that the authors have not provided evidence - has been deleted by Bobrayner. Has he the power to decide what is important? A statement of fact about something that not many people know is not an improvement? Why not? Because he says so? Is this typical of wikipedia? That those with a strong agenda have the power to delete statements of fact because it doesn't support their opinions? It'd be good to know - and to let the whole world know. Johntosco ( talk) 19:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Alexbrn, this looks like you clutching at straws. I have given the book's website as reference. Is the book's website (which was written by the same authors) not a reliable source for the book's lack of references? Is it typical of you to check everything those who don't agree with you have written? Is it typical of you NOT to read well the posts, and accuse people of not providing sources, when those sources are obviously there? Johntosco ( talk) 19:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean what source is complaining about the book's lack of follow-up? I was merely pointing out a fact. They promised in 2009 to publish their references (in the following weeks) and they haven't done so in 2013. I believe that when a book claims to be evidence-based it should provide the evidence. And I believe people should know that they are NOT providing the evidence for their claims. If it was a novel it wouldn't matter. But maybe you don't agree. Johntosco ( talk) 21:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
That's good to know mate. So an encyclopedia that boasts about everyone being able to edit it, as long as they provide reliable references, is a TOTAL, ABSOLUTE LIE. Proof, evidence don't mean a thing in wikipedia, and certainly nothing to Alexbrn. Talk about agendas. I wonder if you and Bobrayner get a kick out of having the power to delete proven things. In my youth we called it 1984. Good work! Don't worry! Nobody will know the truth. Some people are bent on hiding it. I repeat, good work! Congratulate Bobrayner and all those who dislike the truth when it doesn't suit them. Johntosco ( talk) 21:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Please! Don't take me for an idiot. You were not asking for a reliable reference - I've already provided that, the book's website. You were asking for a source that has been given some notability by being at least mentioned in independent sources. That's not the same. And please do not begin lying about what you asked for. Johntosco ( talk) 21:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Again taking me for an idiot. The position is CLEARLY advanced by the source itself. I repeat - you don't seem to have understood, or maybe you are pretending not to have understood - that the SOURCE ITSELF says: "we have decided to provide a fuller list of references on this website. The list of references on this site is not yet complete, but we will load them chapter by chapter over the coming weeks." Wasn't it clear when I gave the reference the first time? Wasn't it clear when I gave the reference the second time? Do I have to give the reference a third time? OK. here it is. http://www.trickortreatment.com/references.html Published in 2009. But I suppose those who dislike the truth have a different interpretation of the meaning of "over the coming weeks" Johntosco ( talk) 21:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
so far, in 2013, it has completely failed to provide any references
There is an easy solution for that. You - or Bobrayner - suggest how to say the same thing (the fact that they haven't provided the promised references in over four years) in a more neutral tone, instead of deleting it. I am open to suggestions. But neither him nor you seem to be interested in including this fact. As I said, you are bent on hiding the truth. And I must say that you are very good at it. By the way, I believe this is part of wikipedia's guidelines: "When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can instead of just deleting it." Does it apply to him or you? Apparently not. Johntosco ( talk) 21:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Alexbrn. There is a source that has been mentioned in independent sources and complains about the lack of references in "Trick or Treatment" It is a book called "Halloween Science" and it has been mentioned in "The Quackometer" http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/04/homeopaths-attempt-to-rubbish-ernst-and.html by the publications of the UK parliament http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/homeopathy/ucm3302.htm and a long etc. I have asked for mediation because I think your deletion of my contribution is unwarranted and biased. Johntosco ( talk) 09:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Alexbrn. 1) It is you who is edit warring. 2) I didn't mention User:Bobrayner and User:Pcabotto because they are not edit warring as you are. 3) Insulting Pcabotto is a ... really really interesting approach. 4) The dispute seems to be between you, who refuses to accept the evidence, and to include it in the article, and me who has provided it. Johntosco ( talk) 09:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Blackguard SF. could you please clarify what you mean by: "Original research unsupported by third party source". The lack of references in a book's website has to be supported by whom? Please explain. You could support it. ALL you have to do is go to the website and check it.Since the website is given as an external link in the article, I believe it is very simple. Johntosco ( talk) 09:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Blackguard SF. I don't think it is very polite of you to reply on your Talk page instead of here. Furthermore, it is not original research as I pointed out since the lack of references was mentioned in the book "Halloween Science", and has been recognised by Ernst and Singh on their website. Johntosco ( talk) 09:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
1) I had already given some references on 09:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC) 2) Please check http://www.homeopathyworkedforme.org/#/halloween-science/4533482584 where the lack of references in 'Trick or Treatment' is mentioned more than once. 3) Please also check http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b2783?tab=responses where Ernst himself acknowledges the lack of references in his reply of 26 July 2009. Johntosco ( talk) 09:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok. Let's call it an article, an essay. Whatever you want. Important enough to have been mentioned in the BMJ, by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committe. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=85nEQjUyCPAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false and by the journalist Martin Walker. http://www.slingshotpublications.com/reviews/reviews-dirty-medicine-the-handbook Johntosco ( talk) 09:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
So piecing together what the sources say, we have something like this:
A homeopath, William Alderson, self-published a 142-page book attempting to "rubbish" Trick or Treatment.[ref] Andy Lewis of the Quackometer blog called it a "dismal critique" destined to become an exemplar of the Dunning-Kruger effect,[ref] and Ernst said that Alderson's criticism, that the book lacked references, showed a failure to understand the nature of popular science publishing.[ref]
However, I don't think this really rises above the level of the trivial, and so am not inclined to include it. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 09:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Look Alexbrn. I am tired. Let's end the charade there. How dare you or Blackguard SF say that my contribution was a POV or original research? It was neither. It was a simple observation about the book's website. Observation which anyone and everyone can check. You and him know the tricks of wikipedia which I don't so, Congratulations!. As anyone who reads Blackguard SF's talk page, he is not neutral, nor are you. I am also fed up with your lies. You know very well that what I wanted to include was the lack of references in the book's website and not the rubbish you have accused me of wanting to include on 09:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC) You also know - so I don't see why you have to lie about what I wanted to include - that this lack of references is important, for a book that claims to be evidence-based. So, if anyone who is neutral wants to mediate, fine. Otherwise , I grant you the victory. You have managed to keep an observation which was inconvenient for you personally (talk about POV!) out of the article. The only thing remaining for me is to wish you and Blackguard SF luck in your future attempts to destroy contributions which you don't like. Johntosco ( talk) 11:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I have undone some original research following wikipedia guidelines. However, Blackguard SF says - without explaining why - that it has been done against consensus, policy, mediation and talk page discussion. What talk page discussion? Has there been any talk page discussion about the contents of the book? What consensus? What policy? Which mediation? Doesn't he have to explain? Johntosco ( talk) 21:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't see the need for being insulted by Blackguard SF. Nor do I see him replying to my point, What talk page discussion? Has there been any talk page discussion about the contents of the book? What consensus? What policy? Which mediation? He still refuses to say why the contents page is not original research Johntosco ( talk) 23:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
References
My entry was removed by
user:Alexbrn the originator of the current text, changed from:
The BCA eventually dropped the case after a ruling on the meaning of Singh's article went against them.
to referencing the guardian as saying:
In 2010, after 2 years, the BCA dropped the case after the court of the appeal found that Singh was expressing opinion, rather than stating facts. The presiding judges commented that "this litigation has almost certainly had a chilling effect on public debate which might otherwise have assisted potential patients to make informed choices about the possible use of chiropractic".
This entry is implicating that the Guardian (and other pseudoscience rejecting media) saw this as only a technical win for Singh (or even worse), and no implication whatsoever on the BCA practices, besides 'opinion'.
Actually the article explicitly and carefully pointed out that his claims where upheld by other bodies, and that this was a victory for Singh. The tone and the content are in fact embracing Singh's words in the book, which is the prominent mainstream view.
Since Wikipedia has a clear
policy about pseudoscience (WP:Fringe), which states:
... and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately...
... editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description or prominence of the mainstream views.
Please return my edit which added:
The Guardian noted that Singh had been sued because he had spoken out against chiropractors "for making claims the Advertising Standards Authority has ruled can no longer be made."
Otherwise, the article is promoting chiropractics, a trait clearly marked in the Wikipedia, and with no doubt, as pseudoscience. פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 09:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)