User talk:Jim Butler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jim Butler is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia ca. Dec. 1

Welcome!

Hello, Jim Butler, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Ragib 28 June 2005 06:32 (UTC)

Contents 1 Thanks 2 acupuncture 3 Beta blocker 4 Acupuncture edits 5 TCM 6 Reiki science 7 acupressure revert 8 Bullshit 9 ChiroTalk 10 Use the talk page. 11 Pseudodefinitiveness 12 Removing categories 13 Keep it up 14 Your Mediation Cabal case request 15 Three revert rule 16 Category/List merge 17 Evidence-based CAM? 18 pseudoscience 19 More on Butler 20 Consensus 21 Metaphor 22 Skeptical, moi? 23 Reply to Mccready's email 24 Suggesting an one month community ban for Mccready on all pseudoscience articles 25 Mccready is issued a 30 day community probation related to Pseudoscience articles 26 FYI 27 Validity of Vitalism 28 Proposal to merge Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and NCAHF article 29 Request for Arbitration involvement 30 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience 31 Acupuncture 2 32 Acupuncture; aspies 33 Good Move

[edit] Thanks

I just wanted to leave a note to thank you for all the effort you've put into maintaining NPOV on the Adi Da article. I wrote the initial version of that article, but, for better or worse, it's come a long way since then, and I'm nowhere near qualified to keep up with all the conflicting claims. I really appreciate your editorial work there. - Nat Krause 06:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] acupuncture

Hi Jim

Thanks for your work on acupuncture. I would like you to consider putting back some of the material you removed. I didn't cherry pick, and it was a list of criticisms. If you google acupunture on cochrane you will see what I mean. I also reported accurately that Cochrane had some support for P6 in the wrist. Looking forward to some good collaboration on this one. Mccready 23:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mccready, I just replied on the acupuncture discussion page. Thanks! Best,-Jim Butler 07:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beta blocker

Hey Jim, Thanks for your attention on the Beta blocker article. I actually have experience with both and can read the jargon used in the article (and understand what the original author(s) tried to say), and also know a bit about Wikifying (it's my WP subspecialty). The big problem for me is finding the time and remembering to do it. When I can, I'll definitely go over the article with a fine-tooth comb. And yes, in your words, "Oy, what a mess." --Animated Cascade ^talk 20:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Cool! Totally agree re time; that's the limiting factor for me as well. Great to hear you've got your eye on it. -Jim Butler 20:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acupuncture edits

hi Jim I've been holding off editing on the acupunture page waiting for your rewrite on trad stuff and rationalising of NIH stuff. Timeline when you might get round to it? Hope you're well. Mccready 06:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, yes, have been well but busy (and wasting the time I have on the Adi Da article, which takes less research since I know the material all too well). Within a couple days, yes; also will mull over ways to trim the whole thing down. Hope all well with you too! Does my responding here automatically inbox you? -Jim Butler 22:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Note to meself: source Bian stone mention in Acu article to Cheng textbook. Jim Butler 05:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TCM

Ok, thank you for that. --SasaStefanovic • 18:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reiki science

Jim, You seem to be following me around. I don't have a problem with that because I believe the definition of wikistalking MUST involve harassment. Your edits on Reiki appear to have been done without looking at the discussion and examining the links. A googling of "reiki science" throws up many sites which set out in great detail why reiki is a science. Given the fact that these claims do not stack up scientifically (prove me wrong), the pseduoscience label applies. I have reported user 58.178.137.47 whose edit summary adding cooking etc said Added other fields Reiki has no basis in... to balance out the biased science comments in opening, for vandalism and suspected sockpuppetry. Mccready 08:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kevin -- just keeping an eye on your alt-meds edits for POV, and editing them in good faith, which as we both know is not Wikistalking. (I took no offense when you did the same thing on the Adi Da and Facilitated Communication articles, although in both cases your edits reflected some lack of understanding of the topics, which you had never edited before and haven't edited since.) No harm intended by my edits, I hope you realize; we simply disagree on NPOV and on what is appropriate in lead sections. I stand corrected on Reiki as "science", as I'd never seen it portrayed as a "science" before. To the extent that it is portrayed as scientific, I would have no problem designating it as pseudoscience. In any case, since the label is contentious and not universally agreed-upon (since some Reiki practitioners don't portray it as scientific), we need to remember NPOV. As I indicated on the Reiki talk page, the NPOV solution would seem to be just to say who calls it a pseudoscience and why, not to present the designation as fact. Looks like other editors have done this already. Also, for the record, I have no particular opinion on the value of Reiki as a healing art or spiritual practice. thx, Jim Butler 04:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] acupressure revert

hi jim, this is to give you the courtesy of explaining my revert. you said Many (probably most) practitioners don't take it literally). I don't accept this unsourced conclusion. "conceptual framework" gives it a grander cachet. It is a belief system. Your notions of when "science" began appear to be OR. So I've reverted that too. I have aboriginal friends who've lived in a continuous culture for at least 60,000 years. Their scientific knowledge of flora and fauna and their ability to think logically and scientifically about such things is nothing short of stunning. talk to any australian scientist whose ever had anything to do with aborigines in this regard and you're likely to hear the same remark. Pity that the whites have wiped out large bodies of knowledge. Mccready 04:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, thanks for the discussion (am copying all this to acupressure page). One of the things I truly appreciate about your edits here, even if I'm sometimes frustrated by them, is that they frequently make me think and dig more deeply into the issues we're discussing. I agree with your point about "scientific thinking" predating, and don't mind your reverting my edit on that. However, you need to come up with a better reason for using the term "belief system" in place of "principles" (or "ideas", etc.) It adds a gratuitous judgement about the attitudes of people who developed and used the system, some of whom may be as on-the-ball scientifically as your aboriginal friends. You want a source for practitioners not taking TCM as literal truth? Try Kaptchuk (Web, 1983 ed., pp. 34-35):

These ideas are cultural and speculative constructs that provide orientation and direction for the practical patient situation. There are few secrets of Oriental wisdom buried here. When presented outside the context of Chinese civilization, or of practical diagnosis and therapeutics, these ideas are fragmented and without great significance. The "truth" of these ideas lies in the way the physician can use them to treat real people with real complaints. They are valuable because they comprise a medical paradigm that makes possible the substantive discussion of "what is going on", thereby allowing the physician to diagnose patterns of disharmony. Through diagnosis and treatment the ideas are pragmatically tested and examined for validity, consistency, and truth.

Kaptchuk is a pretty well-known disseminator of TCM in the West, and his point goes to the heart of the issue of "belief". You may dismiss his take as apologetics, but in fact there some acupucturists (like me) who are comfortable with a fundamentally pragmatic view of TCM, and this is what Kaptchuk is getting at. (Philosophical tangent: have you read Rorty on pragmatism?) People who think along such lines are more interested in how TCM theory can help them achieve clinical goals than in whether or not to believe in it. For for a Taoist priest, TCM is likely a belief system, but not necessarily for others.

So why "go there"? I hope you don't make "belief system" your next pet lead-section riff. cheers, Jim Butler 08:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bullshit

You have recently made a contribution on the page bullshit. The topic is fraught with peril. Wikipedia is dedicated to the established truth, it is not even an evironment for new truth. Falsehoods are clearly an anathema as are articles that are simply bullshiting. What can possibly be said about bullshit that is not in itself just bullshiting. Ive tried and been deemed a failure.

You seem to have noted the unsupported claim that

'Bullshit as an activity commonly occurs in situations where truth and accuracy are far less important than the ability to achieve a suitable response in the audience.'^{[citation needed]}

There is no possible citation. Various philosophers could if they chose exprewss a POV but it would only ever be about the Bullshiting they encountered in life in their academic circles and hence be annectdotal. Bullshiting as a practice in my experience varies greatly within a community. My blue collar mates, bullshit differently to my university qualified colleagues and each group might suggest the other are generally 'full of it' and 'full of themselves'.

I believe for the article to make any progress it needs

A work,

B A number of examples so the article can say how that piece of Bullshit is constructed and differs from either non bullshit truth or non bullshit lies. It is probably possible to cite any number of examples of bullshit and hence collect a range of exmplars. See the wikipedia:Joke where the best explanation was largely deemed to be examples, for a similar reason.

When the reader encounters actual Bullshit in the real world similarity to the examples would allow them to identify what is actually happening. "Shops offering 20% discount" is true, it is a 20% discount over the potentially previously marked up price. The shop says that, though in order that a prospective customer will believe they are saving money when in fact they may not be. Note the 'may'. 20% discounts soemtimes are discounts. Even the concept 'Saving Money' is according to some bullshiting, you are not saving money you are spending less than you would iff you choose to buy this at another time.

In some sense me arguing about saving money betrays me as an excessive realist, who also does not like euphamisms such as 'collateral damage'.

Weasel words, DoubleSpeak

As you see there are many citations that could be made, if enough people with enough wiki zen took the task on.

Note. If you choose to come back and help, there is a problem, and there have been several but not quite 3 reverts already. I suspect I am a new broom perhaps an older (wiser?) broom can make things start to move forwards instead of in circles.

AccurateOne 09:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Accu, thanks for the thoughts. It's a potentially cool article. I haven't got the time to put much into it. I'd suggest checking out WP:NOR, though. thx, Jim Butler 08:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ChiroTalk

I noticed recently that Chirotalk has started its own self-promoting article on WP. I nominated it for deletion. As someone who has recently edited the chiropractic article and discussion pages, I thought you might want to chime in with your thoughts here. I read some of the WP guidelines today, especially on What Wikipedia is Not, and it seems to me that this article violates self-promotion and soapboxing, but please judge for yourself. Thanks. TheDoctorIsIn 02:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. There's always something more I can learn about Wikipedia, and tonight it was WP:WEB, which suggests a pretty strong delete in this case. cheers, Jim Butler 06:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use the talk page.

Just to make sure you know, article have talk pages. You do not need to send messages in edit summaries. Jefffire 17:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I use talk pages extensively. This time I tried using a dummy edit since the message was concise. It worked, but I still prefer talk pages. Thanks, and see you around, Jim Butler^(talk) 17:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer it if people stuck to talk pages for this kind of discussion as edit summaries like this don't tell people if they should check the change or not.

On the topic of the report, why do you believe they are not reliable? Jefffire 17:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Because there is good reason to believe they are biased. See the Wikipedia article on the NCAHF, including SLAPPSUIT stuff, and this Google cache of a letter from a chiropractic advocate. In their position paper on acupuncture [1], they use weasel words to the effect that "acupuncture does not effect the course of any disease", conveniently bypassing discussion of research on symptoms and signs such as nausea and vomiting. That's disingenuous. Although some of what they say is valid, by no means would I take them as a reliable arbiter of what is "scientific", or scientifically validated. I'd look more to EBM groups for that. E.g., related to Reiki, [2], [3]. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 18:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. This absolutely a valid position, although I think I may disagree. The onus would of course be upon me to prove they are a reliable source if I wished to change the wording. I'll have a look around for either more sources or for validation of this organisation. Jefffire 20:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the NCAHF, IMO, is that in their zealousness to debunk they sometimes let reason fall by the wayside, and that gives both skepticism and science a bad name. It risks reducing the public debate to mere politics rather than evidence and logic. This plays right into stuff like the ID-ers' "wedge strategy", sadly.

I'll keep an eye out for sources too, and hopefully we'll come up with something more reliable. Interpreting evidence is necessarily about opinion, so the best way to put it would be something like "a majority of scientists believe that Reiki's claims are unsupported by evidence". Failing that, we can keep using NPOV wording and better sources. Jim Butler^(talk) 07:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudodefinitiveness

Hi Jim: I appreciated your comment. I will need to look this through more closely again. That one section is the one I'm most apprehensive about, but let's give it a conceptual "once-over". See you on that talk page. ... Kenosis 23:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing categories

Do not remove category:pseudoscience from articles which just happen to be your favourite form of "alternative" medicine. Despite the conversation you are having with yourself at category talk:pseudoscience, you have not consensus for such changes. Try to justify such changes at talk:Acupressure and talk:Acupuncture point first. — Dunc|☺ 10:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

He could have phrased it more gently, but I would have to agree. At present the scientific consensus is that these topics are pseudoscience (although that may well change depending on some promising reports, although that would probably result in the usurping of those currently practicing it with science minded people, but that's just an aside). Anyway, I'm sure you get my meaning. We have to follow the trends, even if it means we will always run the risk of being out of date. Jefffire 11:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jefffire - you wrote "At present the scientific consensus is that these topics are pseudoscience". Can you cite a reliable source for that? I agree there is no scientific consensus that acupressure works (except maybe P6 for nausea) or that acupuncture points are valid, but that doesn't mean consensus exists that they are bogus, unworthy of research, misrepresented as having scientific foundation, or inherently untestable. "Unproven" is not synonymous with "pseudoscientific". I think that use of category:pseudoscience at least requires scientific consensus. Such consensus is demonstrable for things like so-called intelligent design. If it's also demonstrable for alt-med things, great, let's use the cat. Or at least be clear on what the cat means. Thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 07:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Glad to respond, Jim. For quotes, the UK Skeptic's association is the most unambigious with a direct "Acupuncture is pseudoscience" [4], and similar quote are found from other skeptical sites. However, a lot of reputable sites do make the point that there may be a legitimate effect, but that there is a lot of pseudoscience mixed up in the field at the moment, such as the concept of Qi. I think it helps if you think about your comments backwards - being a pseudoscience doesn't mean it is bogus. Personaly this is a field in which I feel I can rational keep an open mind. I do however consider it in it's persent state to be a pseudoscience. Jefffire 19:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jeff. Are you saying that the UK Skeptic's association is a reliable source for stating what scientific consensus is? If so, why? I'm not meaning to be obtuse here. I'd certainly have no problem with an article saying who they are, what they say and why. They say: "The practise is based on untenable principles and the small amount of evidence there is to support its use in pain relief can also be called into question." That doesn't quite fit the definition on category:pseudoscience which involves misrepresentation. It sounds like the UK Skeptics are using the term as being more or less synonymous with "unscientific" or "unproven". In practice, popular usage of the term can include some or all of the stuff I mentioned above (bogus, misrepresented, untestable, etc.). This is why NPOV wording is so important, and one of the reasons why using the cat -- which is all or nothing, with no room for any sort of NPOV qualification or sourcing -- is problematic. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 03:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Jim, I'm only using that UK skeptics as an example, rather than the end all. They are reasonably reliable, although there are better sources, such as the skeptics dictionary (which does use the word pseudoscience directly), and the Skeptical inquirer. I appreciate that some of these you will not regard as reliable, so I am only using then as verification that the fields are commonly regarded as pseudoscience. Since it can be verified that it is commonly regarded as a pseudoscience (with talk of "energies", and "meridian") I think the cagegory is apt, although we may wish to mention in the article that this has potenial to change. I'd just like to reiterate that I do feel that this field has potential, but that it is currently a pseudoscience. Jefffire 14:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, the question is "commonly regarded" among whom? Members of skeptical groups? You're saying we should present their consensus as fact, which in effect is what putting something in a category is? Carroll, Randi et. al. are obviously fine as prominent exponents of skeptical POV, but I wouldn't agree the are reliable sources for scientific consensus (that being as close to "fact" as we can get with these matters). Other editors have lamented that scientific consensus often doesn't even bother with whether foo is pseudoscientific, but such is WP:V. It's fine to say who says what and why in articles, but I agree with WP:CG that putting something in a cat -- no ifs, ands or buts, it's in or not --has to pass a strict NPOV and WP:V test. More later on the cat talk page; gotta go. all the best, Jim Butler^(talk) 22:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Dunc - Poor Wikiquette on your part here. I gave a specific reason for deleting category:pseudoscience in my edit summary; in response you reverted without explanation. I reverted, saying I'd be happy to discuss, and here you're responding with ad hominem, reverting while again failing to say why you disagree, and (ironically) scolding me about how I need to be discussing my edits. You've been around long enough to have read WP:CIV, WP:ES and WP:DR. If you want consensus, then do your part in working toward it. I'm happy to discuss on the article talk pages (and in fact, the burden of evidence is on editors who want the cat to remain, per WP:V). How about a little civility and reasonable Wikiquette in the meantime? Thanks, and no harm intended, Jim Butler^(talk) 07:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

If I think you say anything worthwhile, I'll respond appropriately. Until then you can take my silence as being indicative at the patent lack of support or references for your POV pushing and my total disdain for it. (FYI, that is not poor wikiquette, you have quite clearly shown yourself to have an agenda which you are pursuing with verve and thus causing a lot of disruption, which I do not want to encourage). — Dunc|☺ 09:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That you think that someone is "POV-pushing" doesn't excuse you from following WP policy, nor does it justify being disruptive yourself. You're just as bound by the requirement to seek consensus and provide sources as anyone else. I think the complaints piling up on your now-archived user talk page speak for themselves. When the same starts happening on mine, I'll take your concerns more seriously. Have a better one, Jim Butler^(talk) 20:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keep it up

Jim, Keep up the good work on Pseudoscience. I am by no means an expert, but neither is anyone else. Your contention that the category needs to be more specific seems accurate. The way it is written, most of medicine is pseudoscience as well. For that matter, all sciences would have an element of pseudoscience and therefore should be in the category. Maybe someone should start adding them:) Perhaps you would then be able to conjour up a majority and a more accurate definition might appear. --Dematt 12:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Dematt! Appreciate the encouragement. Please join the discussion at category talk:pseudoscience. Thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 07:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Mediation Cabal case request

Hi there, concerning your request for assistance by the Mediation Cabal, I just came here to inform you that the case was improperly filed and I have moved it to a more suitable page at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-08 Acupuncture. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 01:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. My first time with the process. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk)

Hello there, Jim Butler. I have volunteered to mediate your case. Please voice any opinions and evidence you have supporting your stance at the relevant page. Only with your cooperation can the case be resolved peacefully. Thanks. --Physicq210 20:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three revert rule

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. HawkerTyphoon 16:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Honest mistake: the page hadn't been edited for over a month, and I didn't mentally count my first edit as a revert, even though I now see it was. I generally try to avoid such edit warring. Since there's no compromise beteeen having a template be on a page or not, it's a difficult situation, especially since the other editors involved appear to think my objections are meritless, are not inclined to discuss, and wish to preserve the status quo (i.e., not attract discussion with the template). It may take some more bold, revert, discuss cycles to move things along, but I'll go more slowly and give other editors time to respond. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 17:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No worries, it was just a friendly warning and I can be a bit vicious at times. I posted the same warning to the other man involved - thankyou for your response, however, I wasn't expecting one and it was a pleasant surprise:-) HawkerTyphoon 00:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if your original post represented the maximum possible viciousness on WP, it would be a pretty utopian place!  :-) Peace, Jim Butler^(talk) 04:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category/List merge

Hi Jim. First off, I need to thank you for your calm demeanor, serving as an example of how to best respond to impolite comments. I've recently lost my temper trying to deal with some of the same unreasonable individuals that you handle so gracefully, and was on the verge of deciding to leave Wikipedia for good. Your posts remind me that there are other people here that make it well worth staying.

In trying to determine the root cause of the dispute over the pseudoscientists category, I've come to the conclusion that the Wikipedia would be a better place if categories had more features (thus negating the question of "Category, or List?").

I first tried removing the pseudoscientists category tag from a controversial article (the AIDS dissidents category – not because I'm sympathetic to their views, but because that category happens to include Kary Mullis, a Nobel-prize winner whose only connection to the AIDS dissident movement is his criticism of some of the methodology of AIDS research, which technically makes him an AIDS skeptic, but certainly not a pseudoscientist) and had my edits reverted by Dunc without discussion. After realizing that he and his cadre weren't going to discuss the issue reasonably, and noticing that the same thing (with the same individuals) was happening on a number of other controversial pages, I decided that the problem was the pseudoscientists category itself, and nominated it for CfD. After it was deleted, the same individuals started adding the pseudoscience category tag to those pages, and subsequently started a deletion review on the CfD.

The discussion there and on the pseudoscience category talk page have made me realize that the categories are likely to never be deleted (the CfD for pseudoscientists will probably be overturned) and the reason ultimately stems from the differences between categories and lists. So, being a developer, I think the best solution is simply to remove those differences. Then the pseudoscience and pseudoscientists categories (and any others) can be annotated and sourced, which will make us critics happy and (hopefully) make the others happy as well.

I'd like your advice on the best forum to bring this up, and whether I should bother contacting Duncharris, FeloniusMonk, and the rest of that group or if they'll simply be disruptive to the discussion. I've invited them to discuss the issue on both the pseudoscience category talk page and the deletion review page, but they seem to be ignoring the request.

Thanks, --Wclark 16:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Jim, your edit summary "Label first, ask questions later?" was great! I think that observation is about right-- many editors will label first on numerous articles that find their way into the cat. Some knowledgeable, objectively minded editors obviously need to keep up with that category on a regular basis. I don't imagine it will help to just ditch the whole category because it's controversial and debatable. Interestingly, in general I don't need to argue when I've gone to these articles and removed the obvious cheap shots. And it's a learning process for folks too; they learn to better understand what makes for valid science and what makes for pseudoscience. Heck, we've all learned more just from working on the issue, and as a whole the info presented to readers has gotten better too. ... Kenosis 22:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kenosis and Wclark. I think both of you have made quite lucid and helpful comments yourselves, and things are trending better, thanks to the heightened level of civility and substance. There is some acknowledgement from other editors of the NPOV issues specific to the use of categories, most of which could be handled with annotation: WClark, I think your idea about modifying the Wiki software to allow this with cats is excellent, and should be pursued. Side note: WP:CG may allude to the possibility of annotation when it says (emphasis added) "If the nature of something is in dispute (like whether or not it's fictional or scientific or whatever), you may want to avoid labelling it or mark the categorization as disputed." The only way I know of at present to label a category as disputed is to tag the whole article with the generic Template:Disputed-category.

Re FM and Dunc, unfortunately, I haven't had much luck with them either (maybe my approach just rubs them the wrong way), so I've just continued discussing this stuff with other editors who are interested. I think your suggestion simply got buried on the cat talk page in the flurry of comments, and would bear repeating with its own header. Also Wikipedia_talk:Categorization and other more general venues seem like logical places. I'd strongly support your pursuing this. best, Jim Butler^(talk) 07:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence-based CAM?

Hi Jim,

I'm curious. I haven't really tried to find out exactly what you believe regarding alternative medicine. I only know that you really attempt to work for NPOV, and you maintain your cool when under pressure, and to top it off, you do both things very admirably! I would like to hear your opinion on the following matter, and I'll start with this edit summary of yours:

"..... Misleading given that some CAM has EBM support......." [5]

You see, to me and other skeptics, the idea that there is such a thing as evidence-based CAM is an oxymoron.

Following are some of the thoughts and quotes that reveal and influence my thinking, and after you have read it, I'd like to know what you think of it. I'll start with something from here at Wikipedia:

Alternative Definition

The terms "alternative medicine", "complementary medicine" and "CAM" are generally understood in terms of their relationship to mainstream Western medicine, as described above.[4] Richard Dawkins, Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, argues for a different definition of alternative medicine, based not on sphere of usage but on evidence: "alternative medicine is defined as that set of practices which cannot be tested, refuse to be tested, or consistently fail tests. If a healing technique is demonstrated to have curative properties in properly controlled double-blind trials, it ceases to be alternative. It simply...becomes medicine." He also states that "There is no alternative medicine. There is only medicine that works and medicine that doesn't work."[5]

Well-known proponents of evidence-based medicine who study CAM, such as the Cochrane Collaboration and Edzard Ernst, Professor of Complementary Medicine at the University of Exeter, have retained CAM's generally-accepted definition and do not define CAM as Dawkins does. In their view, there can be "good CAM" or "bad CAM" based on evidentiary support. [6][7][8] [6]

This touches on what I call a "dividing line" and definitional problem as to what we should label as CAM (indeed a problematic term!), and what we should label as EBM. Strictly speaking, from the skeptic viewpoint, "evidence-based CAM" is an oxymoron.....

According to skeptics and physicians like Dawkins, Sagan, Randi, Angell, Fontanarosa, Lundberg, and Barrett, the concept of "alternative" is often being misused in a misleading form of marketing, implying something that is far from the case. Barrett puts it this way:

"Alternative has two possible meanings. Correctly employed, it refers to methods that have equal value for a particular purpose. (An example would be two antibiotics capable of killing a particular organism.) When applied to unproven methods, however, the term can be misleading because methods that are unsafe or ineffective are not reasonable alternatives to proven treatment. To emphasize this fact, we place the word "alternative" in quotation marks throughout this book whenever it is applied to methods that are not based on established scientific knowledge." - Stephen Barrett, MD [7]

Although NCCAM funds research, I don't see it proclaiming any "alternative" method as disproven. This situation needs to stop. How many years should a nonsensical method divert funds into wasteful and pointless research, after multiple quality experiments have shown no promise, and proven that the emperor has no clothes? At what point does one proclaim that (for example) homeopathy is dead?

Some relevant quotes:

• "There cannot be two kinds of medicine - conventional and alternative. There is only medicine that has been adequately tested and medicine that has not, medicine that works and medicine that may or may not work. Once a treatment has been tested rigorously, it no longer matters whether it was considered alternative at the outset. If it is found to be reasonably safe and effective, it will be accepted." - Angell M, Kassirer JP, "Alternative medicine--the risks of untested and unregulated remedies." N Engl J Med 1998;339:839.

• "There is no alternative medicine. There is only scientifically proven, evidence-based medicine supported by solid data or unproven medicine, for which scientific evidence is lacking. Whether a therapeutic practice is 'Eastern' or 'Western,' is unconventional or mainstream, or involves mind-body techniques or molecular genetics is largely irrelevant except for historical purposes and cultural interest. As believers in science and evidence, we must focus on fundamental issues-namely, the patient, the target disease or condition, the proposed or practiced treatment, and the need for convincing data on safety and therapeutic efficacy." - Fontanarosa P.B., and Lundberg G.D. "Alternative medicine meets science" JAMA. 1998; 280: 1618-1619.

• "The "alternative" folks have had their way with the language. Treatments are "alternative" and "complementary" and "integrative" but the fact is that they're not a legitimate alternative if they don't do anything, they're not "complementary" if they don't add to anything but expense and they don't need to be "integrated" if they're just a waste of time and money." - David Ramey, DVM

I see it as problematic that while the established health care system is actively trying to weed out ineffective methods, the CAM system is searching through the garbage heap of discarded and disproven methods, in an attempt to revive and invent methods for which proof is not only lacking, but for which there is often adequate proof of lack of effect.

Here are a few of my articles that directly address these issues:

• Is CAM a UFO?

• A Consumer Advocate's Dilemma: Should CAM be Researched?

• Freedom of Informed Choice

From "Is CAM a UFO?":

Evidence-based methods are effective, and effective methods should be evidence-based. If a method appears to be effective, then it should be possible to prove it. If the research has not been done yet, it should be. We must remember that "Absence of proof is not the same as the absence of fact; it simply demonstrates the lack of adequate research. - Robert Sydenham. "Lack of evidence in the literature is not evidence of lack of effectiveness."

This is often misunderstood, since it contains two poorly understood elements. The first is that effectiveness exists, in and of itself, regardless of proof, or rather, "before" proof is provided by proper research. The second is that lack of proof doesn't justify the marketing of methods based solely on claims of effectiveness, which are hoped to be proven in the future.

It is one thing to say: "I believe it's effective, but have no proof as yet." It's quite another to say: "I believe it's effective, and my experience with it is enough proof for me and my customers."

I don't know if you are familiar with this book (I am not), but the book review title deserves a comment:

> Is Evidence-Based Medicine Evidence Based?

> http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/24/2/562

It's a straw man argument, because it's asking the wrong question. I assume it means something like this:

"Is Modern Medicine Evidence Based?"

Well, I'd say it's on its way....;-) The EBM "movement" or paradigm is an attempt to take what the medical system has developed through experimentation, what it has gained from experience, and what it has inherited from its pretty much quackery-filled past, and sort through it to weed out the junk. The idea is quality control, and the job is far from finished. It's a battle fought on several fronts, and not always very well:

1. Weeding out the junk that is in what we have inherited;
2. Constantly reevaluating earlier findings in light of newer findings;
3. Seeking to measure the difference between real effects and the placebo illusion;
4. Attempting to ensure that laboratory results are relevant to clinical practice;
5. Preventing junk from sneaking in the back door. (NCCAM is doing a great job - to sneak it in.)
6. other points?

Just a few thoughts to ponder....IMHO.

What is your opinion regarding the continued use of the word "alternative," in the commonly used meaning, when dealing with "alternative" medicine? Shouldn't scientists and Wikipedia editors attempt to alert the public to the problem, and shouldn't they openly adopt Dawkins' (and other skeptics') interpretation regarding the decisive difference between alt med and EBM - evidence of effect? If it's proven to be effective, then it ceases to be alternative medicine, and becomes EBM.

The last sentence in the article's introduction is my contribution, one that has survived a long time now:

"Proponents of evidence-based medicine regard the distinction between conventional and alternative medicine as moot, preferring "good medicine" (with provable efficacy) and "bad medicine" (without it). "Bad medicine" is any treatment where the efficacy and safety of which has not been verified through peer-reviewed, double blind placebo controlled studies, regarded as the "gold standard" for determining the efficacy of a compound. It is thus possible for a method to change categories in either direction, based on increased knowledge of its effectiveness or lack thereof." [3]

Now Jim, what do you think of the above?

Sincere regards,

Paul

Hi Paul! Thanks for your encouraging words re my editing style. To the extent I've gotten better at keeping my cool, it's been due to the fine example set by other editors, such as yourself.

To cut to the chase, a great deal of the above discussion is semantic. If we define alt-med as "that which is non-EBM", then trivially, EBM-supported CAM is an oxymoron. But the issue is simple enough: most people don't use the EBM-based definition of CAM that Dawkins et. al. do. It simply hasn't caught on. Most, including well-known researchers like Ernst and Jonas, define alt-med as something like "medicine outside the mainsteam", or "medicine not taught in most medical school curricula". That definition is based on social sphere of usage, not degree of evidentiary support. For better or worse, it's become the definition most people use.

Using that definition, there's obviously no oxymoron at all; both mainstream and non-mainstream medicine are subject to EBM; cf. acupuncture for some examples of evidence-based CAM. Likewise, there are techniques in mainstream medicine for which gold-standard EBM evidence doesn't exist, but calling (say) unproven arthroplasty techniques "alternative" or "pseudoscientific" just muddies the waters. There are grey areas both between EBM and non-EBM on the one hand, and mainstream medicine and so-deemed-CAM on the other. Too much emphasis on "what should be" (i.e., the science-based definition you'd prefer) vs "what is" (i.e., the definition that has come to predominate in popular usage), manifesting as persistent attempts to redefine popularly-accepted terms and demarcate shades of grey into black or white, tends to distract from more interesting debates about evidence and study design; it verges on the same sort of error discussed at WP:POINT, whether we do it here on WP or elsewhere.

However, I can understand the frustration that some scientific-skeptical types would feel over what Ramey calls the "war of words". That is a two-way street; Truzzi and others have objected to the use of the term "skeptic" by people whom he, and others, would likely have called "debunkers" or "pseudoskeptics" (see pseudoskepticism). So the meme wars are going to continue, but I think too much emphasis on trying to redefine words themselves is a waste of energy. However, to be clear and putting semantic issues aside, educating the public about science is never a waste of energy.

Anyway, CAM (in the more standard, popular, Jonas and Ernst et. al. sense) is a huge area, so it's very hard to comment on it in general. It's a little bit like talking about, e.g., "what it's like to live outside North America". There are a lot of ways to do that, not all equally desirable. Similarly with that collection of non-mainstream practices that are referred to as alt-med or CAM. There's some garbage, there's some good stuff, and quite a lot of baby and bathwater mixed together.

As a matter of public policy, I'm a strong libertarian, and thus tend to err on the side of letting people doing what they want unless others are getting hurt in the process. Just as consumers should have the right of eating what they want or paying for art they want, I believe freedom of choice should, as a general rule, apply in terms of what people want to do with their bodies and minds (with a fews exceptions: e.g. virulent poisons, and for public health reasons, some antibiotics). The state ought to be required to meet a compelling burden in order to intervene in this area. It's not even about religion (1st Amendment): it's more generic than that, just basic freedom of choice (that sadly-neglected 9th Amendment). I agree that it's important that people know what they're buying, and what scientific evidence says. If someone buys a packet of snake oil, the label should say "snake oil" and from which species. As on Wikipedia, I'd like to see the marketplace of ideas be vibrant and free, and inclusive and accurate in representing various POV's. Governments, in this regard, imo should regulate that which does harm and educate about the rest: e.g., NCCAM's comments strike me as fairly measured and responsible, here.

People lighten their wallets consuming all sorts of crap, and if some want to throw a bunch of money at unproven alt-med stuff that probably won't either help them outside placebo or hurt them outside wallet-lightening, there are worse things to support. I'm a lot more worried about people believing the Apocalypse is coming, and acting accordingly, than whether they're playing around with homeopathy. Likewise with the fractions of grant money being thrown at CAM. $122 million for the NCCAM isn't much compared to NIH's overall budget, let alone recent billions of dollars that the US gov't has thrown down the drain in misguided, incompetent idealogically-driven forays. But again, I don't dispute the importance of trying to make a positive difference where one can.

OK, it's late, but that's a shorter answer. In the last couple days I've been looking at Goodman's articles on Bayesian inference (footnotes 22 and 23 in the Kimball Atwood paper cited at applied kinesiology[8]. Further thoughts soon.... I always enjoy this sort of conversation! Your patience please while I deal with real-life busyness; I may take a little time to reply.. best regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 08:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) (edited 14:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC))

On the issues of Bayesian inference and prior probability: the general principle seems sensible enough, but I'm suspicious of the intersubjective verifiability of choosing coefficients and reducing it to an equation. It's a bit like the Drake equation for calculating the probability of extraterrestrial life: guess at a bunch of coefficients and presto! Nice, scientific, numerical answer. Decent enough reasoning qualitatively, but try to make it quantitative, well: garbage in, garbage out. Also, I wonder how much longer medicine would have taken to embrace the idea that H. pylori causes ulcers using Bayesian analysis? It would be good to see these things applied in practice. In Jefferson's time, what did people think was the prior probability of rocks falling from the sky? One can see how such thinking could be taken too far toward rigid clinging to the status quo.

In a nutshell, my own skepticism is much closer to Truzzi's than Carroll's; I believe skepticism should be self-deconstructing and that minds should remain open to new frontiers, even if the metaphors used by proponents aren't always scientific. This is particularly so with my favorite CAM field, acupuncture. Sure you can't measure qi, but you can get decent agreement on the symptoms and signs of "spleen qi deficiency", and the clinical predictions are completely testable. Some acupoints very likely do have specific effects, imo, and others may be "better placebos than others" due to their being more sensitive to stimulation than randomly-chosen points. Then there's practitioner technique and bedside manner, which are as important and intangible as a well-prepared, nicely-served meal enjoyed with friends. Feeling good is subjective, but people who feel good also end up healthier over time. Likewise, with Chinese herbs, I suspect we'll find over time that many of the popular formulas have particularly beneficial balances of micronutrients and synergistic combinations of compounds. This stuff can and should be subject to controlled studies, with intelligently-chosen controls. I don't think any of the above mechanisms I suggest are of particularly low "prior probability". cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 20:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pseudoscience

Dear Acupuncture Jim the great believer in acupuncture and other hocus pocus

I am getting sick and tired or reverting your removal of pseudoscience cat.

I am getting sick and tired of your accusations that I do not discuss.

The arguments have been covered ad nauseum if not by me then by my reference to them.

Allow me to plagiarise The pseudoscience cat applies to notable pseudoscientific subjects. Categories are used in Wikipedia to help readers search related subjects. When comparing pseudoscientific subjects, it will help to place notable pseudoscientific subjects together. Just about every part of acupunture is pseudoscientific. It is useful for the reader to read about it in terms of pseudoscientific elements. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. It is not a soapbox. Science comes first, and any dismissal of science in favor of pseudoscience is tantamount to evangelising. The research should focus on reviews, and on what reliable experts have said about the overall reasearch. OR is not necessary at all. If an expert states that the research shows acupunture to be pseudoscientific then it can go in the pseudoscience cat. This does not require any time to iron out. There are many sources stating the overall research shows acupunture is pseudoscientific. You yourself try to fudge it by calling it pre-science or some such other nonsense. Mccready 19:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kevin. Acupuncture is strong enough to withstand criticism. I am too, even though it's entirely gratuitous in this case. Valid criticism does everyone a favor, but dubious criticism like yours only serves to undermine your so-called "skeptical" position. "Shouting" isn't flattering, especially since you're attempting to claim the logical high ground.

Some critics do call acupuncture pseudoscientific to the extent that it relies Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) theory, which uses terms like "yin" and "yang" and "qi", but the point is that TCM theory still makes useful clinical predictions. Those predictions are testable, and are taken seriously enough to be tested by mainstream scholars, and some have found evidence to support acupuncture's use. Those facts are not consistent with the pseudoscience appellation, unless you want to go out on a limb and say Cochrane is pseudoscientific, in which case you're simply pushing an extreme minority POV.

The above-mentioned research is presented at acupuncture with impeccably verified sources, and is hardly consistent with the broad-brush use of category:pseudoscience. WP:CG and other guidelines and policies comment on the NPOV problems presented by using categories, e.g. here. I still haven't seen you address that specific issue. You've in effect just been saying "see earlier comments", and getting ruder each time you say it. Not helpful to anyone's cause. Thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 01:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just read some of your stupidity above. The point is that people DIE from believing in altmed. A friend of mine was almost killed last year. Another friend, an intelligent person, did not quite have the science background to understand that a promised new scientific cure was complete and utter bullshit. And you have the stupidity to say it's harmless. Mccready 19:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think your comment, both in logic and tone, speaks for itself. Obviously I didn't say above that all alt-med was safe. "Alt-med" by definition means "outside conventional medicine", and that includes a huge range of things, so one should generalize with care. I did say that to the extent it doesn't hurt, people should be allowed great latitude to choose it. e.g., I said: "Governments, in this regard, imo should regulate that which does harm and educate about the rest". -Jim Butler^(talk) 21:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jim, you may wish to look at this page, and in particular the recent comments by Kmarinas86 (you may have already seen it) ;-) --apers0n 16:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the head's up. I just read it. I didn't understand it though.  :-) I infer that Kmar has some general objections to designating things as PS. In general, I think the solution is easy enough: present facts about opinions per NPOV, and adequately source and annotate what scientists and self-identified skeptics say. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 20:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More on Butler

I hate to get personal but this user has demonstrated sneaky and hypocritical behaviour. I have just discovered that the mediator he accepted (and Butler did not make me aware of it) said of him Acupuncture mediation

Regarding Jim Butler's conduct

Equally, the conduct of Jim Butler has been questioned, and has led me to the following conclusion:

Insofar as I can see from the talkpages, most editors believe that the topics submitted by Jim Butler (Acupuncture, Acupressure, etc.) are pseudoscientific. WP:NPOV states:

  The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task
  is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the
  minority view...

In short, Jim Butler did not obtain consensus with editors prior to removal of the category.

Given his bad faith I will be even more reluctant to waste time on Butler who is here to defend come what may his religious attachment to the altmed he practices. Mccready 20:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Gee, I guess I should be glad that you "hate to get personal". Wouldn't want to see what it would look like if you did. ;-)

For the record, the MedCab case was brought by me and generally found in my favor, in part because the other party refused to cooperate. It had nothing to do with you, and was about Wikiquette process more than content. It didn't concern you, and there is no bad faith on my part for not involving you. Readers who check out that page will see for themselves what was going on, which was far more than your selection suggests. My response to the assertion that I edited without consensus is on that case's talk page.

So where is the evidence of hypocrisy and bad faith? There isn't any. However, your comments today are over the top, and I feel you are transparently seeking to portray me in the worst possible light in order to gain a rhetorical advantage. Alert editors won't buy into this for a second. Your comments are far outside WP:CIV and are inappropriate. Have a better one, Jim Butler^(talk) 01:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

Please read WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience and stop making changes that are against consensus that promote your own POV. — Dunc|☺ 22:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please point to the consensus on the relevant talk pages. Have you read Wikipedia WP:NPOVT#Categorisation? Same idea as WP:CG says about the POVishness of categories. Your use of rollback to revert without comment is inappropriate per WP:DR and WP:ES. Thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 00:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Note the part of WP:NPOV that says it is non-negotiable. And that includes WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience. Why are you trying to negotiate your way out of NPOV? — Dunc|☺ 09:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Dunc, that link is inactive; what you wanted to link to is WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience. Also relevant to your argument are giving equal vaidity and making necessary asumptions. I'm aware of these. They describe how to apply NPOV, which is non-negotiable. But same goes for all the other parts of NPOV, like WP:NPOVT#Categorisation. Our job as editors, like a panel of judges, is to balance all these principles and apply them sensibly.

The NPOV tutorial says that says the key recommendation for addressing POV problems w/ categories is WP:Categorization of people, which says:

Not all categories are comprehensive: For some "sensitive" categories, it is better to think of the category as a set of representative and unquestioned examples, while a list is a better venue for an attempt at completeness. Particularly for "sensitive" categories, lists can be used as a complement to categorization. See also Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes.

That echoes the WP:CG guideline, which also describes how to apply the principle of NPOV to categories. See especially general guidelines (#8), and category naming.

So how to reconcile all these "non-negotiable" principles? Lots of discussion on this at Talk:Chiropractic and Talk:Pseudoscience, where even skeptical editors like Fyslee and Jim62sch and Kenosis are acknowledging issues with the POVishnes of using the PS category. Gist of the argument is that fields like acupuncture and chiropractic aren't "reprentatative and unquestioned examples". A mix of baby and bathwater shouldn't be categorized as "bathwater" because that's misleading to readers and violates NPOV, cf. WP:NPOVT#Categorisation. Did I mention NPOV was non-negotiable? ;-) Thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 17:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metaphor

There is a chart here with references. --Dematt 14:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting; thanks! So it may not have started out as metaphor. I know that TCM theory is valued for its clinical utility but not taken literally, cf. Kaptchuk's quote here. That's what I meant by "metaphorical". I gather some DC's think similarly, but don't have a feel for the range of views held by chiros. What is your sense on this? best, Jim Butler^(talk) 21:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you are right on! They are metaphors and those tables and sources describe it as a metaphor. KV wanted verifiable sources that someone called them metaphors, there are some. Follow the links and you'll see the word mentioned several times. Thanks for the work on orgone. It's a shame that some people have to resort to such criminal acts to make a point. I wonder how the author would feel if he knew people were twisting his well thought out words into self serving sentences on WP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dematt (talk • contribs) .

Wow, so, there it is. Hard to know whether KV's mistake here is intentional or not. There does appear to be some POV-pushing on his part, or at least tone-deafness to other editors' objections. I think he is well-intentioned but a little bit verging on WP:DBF. I've had days like that... best, Jim Butler^(talk) 06:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. I could probably take a lesson there as well:) --Dematt 15:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You're well into "graduate level" on that count, trust me. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 08:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skeptical, moi?

From Dunc's talk page, "...even skeptical editors like Fyslee and Jim62sch and Kenosis..." Me, skeptical? Surely you jest. ;) (OK, you're right...besides, I've skeptical since I was a little kid -- imagine the burden on my parents). •Jim62sch• 16:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Same here, lol, I was skeptical of authority (especially that which impinged upon my desire to do whatever I wanted) from a very early age. As it turns out, the "sins" of the father have been visited upon the son: one of my seven-year-old's favorite riffs is how he has "rights" to do stuff (like stay up late, climb on things, etc.) He apparently picked up the term from me and his mom talking about disabilities rights. Gotta love his interpretation of that concept. Hey, anyway, much appreciate your informed NPOV perspective as always, and I hope I didn't misquote your take on things .... cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 02:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you didn't misquote me at all. Your seven-year-old sounds like my ten-year-old who has managed to pick up some of my skepticism and now asks whether what her teacher taught her in school is correct. Since I won't lie to her this leads to some interesting correspondence back-and-forth with the school. It'll be interesting to see if my other 3 (not yet in school) pick up on my skepticism (I think the three-year-old will). Yep, sins of the father indeed. ;) •Jim62sch• 14:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Wowee Jim -- four-count'em-four kinder, and you still find time to blog and edit? Would you mind loaning me some of your time-management skills? I stopped at one kid because I was terrified at the prospect of being outnumbered. ;-) btw, noticed your user box for INTJ: I trust you've heard the in-a-nutshell acronyms for each type (e.g. here). Befitting a skeptic, INTJ = "It's not thoroughly justified"! cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 17:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC) (hovering someplace around ENFP territory)

Fortunately, they are pretty good. The three-year-old likes to sit on my lap while I type, and the 10-year-old reads over my shoulder and asks me to explain, so it's kind of neat because I get to teach them things (up to their capacity of course -- when the eyes glaze over, I went too far ;). I never heard of the in-a-nutshell acronyms for each type, so I'll have to check that out. Take it easy. •Jim62sch• 23:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, when I was younger (early twenties to about 30) I was an INTP, and still have some of those traits as well. •Jim62sch• 23:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Mccready's email

See my response to Mccready's unblock request by email. [9] Hope this helps since nothing else has so far. Take care, FloNight 22:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki sure can get ugly at times, eh? •Jim62sch• 22:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you remember that Mccready started an email campaign against me during my RFA? Then when he was blocked for wikistalking SlimVirgin, he emailed me and asked me to unblock him as a way of showing that I could work with him! Blah! FloNight 23:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems people forget that their actions can come back to bite them in the ass. •Jim62sch• 23:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, what goes around comes around, do unto others, be open to feedback .... not exactly rocket science! I appreciate your support here, Flo and Jim. I certainly continue to have stuff to learn, but in this case the idea that I'm causing problems is, imho, a red herring. Busy now -- but sincere thanks. best, Jim Butler^(talk) 01:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Reblocked Mccready for 5 days. Immediately after I shortened his block, he returned and made highly uncivil comments/PA and resumed his disruptive pattern of editing. FloNight 21:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Flo, I agree with your reblocking Mccready and your plan (as mentioned on his talk page) to pursue RFAr if he continues as he has. Having worked with him for several months off and on at acupuncture, I sense that he's an intelligent and well-intentioned guy, but so certain he's right that he's alienating others. Refusal to collaborate is a big no-no, and not everyone who opposes his edits is an extremist as he'd like to believe. Lately he seems impervious to the requests of numerous editors to change his approach, so I think you've done the right thing. (I also strongly applaud your compassionate initial response of unblocking him, and you were right to then draw the line once he blew the chance.) Thanks and all the best to you, Jim Butler^(talk) 22:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggesting an one month community ban for Mccready on all pseudoscience articles

I'm suggesting a one month community ban of Mccready from all pseudoscience articles. [10] He could edit the talk pages but not the article. Please make your thoughts known on AN/I. FloNight 16:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info; difficult issue, but your proposed approach is well-balanced and I can't think of a better one at this point. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 19:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mccready is issued a 30 day community probation related to Pseudoscience articles

Hello

Based on the comments left on AN/I, I issued a 30 day topic ban to Mccready. (see Community probation log [11]) Discussion on talk pages is encouraged. Admins can enforce the ban if needed. Crosspost from AN:

Based on this discussion on AN/I [12] and the numerous comments on Mccready's talk page, Mccready (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is issued a 30 day ban from editing all articles related to the Pseudoscience. Mccready is encouraged to discuss his ideas on the talk pages of these articles. The the suggested sanction for disregarding the article ban is a 24 hour block with the block time adjusted up or down according to Mccready's response. Admins are encouraged to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of this article topic ban and make appropriate adjustments if needed. FloNight 23:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Further discussion about the ban or request for enforcement can be made at AN/I or AN. FloNight 00:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

I'm not going to revert you again (at least tonight :-), but just in case somebody else does, please see the three revert rule. One more revert and you will have violated it and could possibly be blocked for it. Consider yourself warned. :-) —Hanuman Das 02:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not an overview, it's a repetition. Try a shorter summary, which is more appropriate for the lead. As I said, not reverting again tonight to give you a chance to change to a summary. It is too long and detailed for the lead and repeats information (and a typo) later in the article. Clearly cut and pasted. :-) —Hanuman Das 02:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that rule. Are you aware of WP:LEAD and WP:DR? Your recent edits suggest that you may need to review them. Three times you've removed verified and notable material from the lead section[13][14][15], each time giving a vague reason that ignores my attempts to discuss on the talk page. Please engage appropriate Wikiquette and discuss at Talk:Adi Da before removing it again. Thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 02:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Validity of Vitalism

Hey there. I know you're busy, but I wanted to let you know about the discussion and editing going on with the topic of vitalism. It's similar in scope to some of the other discussions we've had with the pseudoscience and skeptic crowd. Only if you're looking for a new distraction! :^} --Travisthurston 04:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to merge Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and NCAHF article

I have started three separate proposals to merge these three articles. The discussion for each amalgamation of the merge begins here. I would appreciate you taking the time to give your thoughts for each proposal. Thanks. Levine2112 00:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Arbitration involvement

Please note that I have started a Request for Arbitration: Pseudoscience vs Pseudoskepticism in which I have included you as an "Involved party", and may wish to comment. --Iantresman 18:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 11:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acupuncture 2

Hi Jim, I'm Pursey - fairly new member, primarily revert vandalism and questionable edits. I've been chasing some edits today on the Acupuncture article, and I noticed that you'd also commented on the same edits. (Ie. Recent lengthy unverifiable and POV edits).

I'm also of the opinion that these edits are not neutral and unverifiable. Perhaps we need to push this for a look at by an Administrator? Pursey 07:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pursey - glad you're keeping an eye on the article. Since the editor is new to WP, I'm hopeful that we can work stuff out w/ him by being extra patient and civil (cf. WP:BITE). best regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 00:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have worked out well :) Nice set of writing on the talk page by the way, fantastic and interesting discussion. I'm damn sure we'll run into each other again, because once I actually get more involved in content editing, I'll be hitting some articles you may have some form of interest in. Most notably, Autism and Asperger Syndrome, and probably quite a few other Medical and Science topics. Pursey 08:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the kind encouragement, and look forward to seeing you around! My homepage (linked from my user page) has a bunch of Autism-related stuff. peace, Jim Butler^(talk) 01:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acupuncture; aspies

Hi Jim. I have replied to your acupuncture comment on my talk page. I see you know quite a bit about autism and AS. My son has AS. He's 18 and getting ready to move from home. He seems to be adapting much better than I had feared. -- Fyslee 06:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, interesting. That's great that he's adapting relatively well. My son just turned 8 and faces significant challenges with basic things like behavior regulation, self-care and communication (he's almost totally nonverbal, though he can read, point at words, and with some help, type). My father also has AS. It's interesting to compare how autism manifests in their respective cases. Even though most people would consider my father to be "higher-functioning" than my son, there are actually some things my father has a harder time with, e.g. he's more rigid about routine and transitions. It's a fascinating and challenging thing. best, Jim Butler^(talk) 05:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Move

Absolutely right with this move. I should have thought of that! Just knew it was out of place in the lead. Thanks for keeping an eye on me;) --Dematt 21:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks and no worries, I figured we'd be on the same page... peace, Jim Butler^(talk) 06:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)