User talk:Avathaar: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:57, 1 July 2009

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

"I have previously been blocked from editing as User:NootherIDAvailable. I agree to editing restrictions and mentoring: 1) I will only edit my own user pages until the Wikipedia community lifts this editing restriction. 2) I will restrict my edits to specific suggestions for how to improve Wikipedia 3) I will not behave at Wikipedia as an advocate of homeopathy or proclaim any personal partisan point of view with respect to the efficacy or medical value of any treatment, therapy or style of medical practice. I now recognize that such advocacy disrupts Wikipedia and does not help to improve the encyclopedia. 4) I now understand the goal of creating neutral Wikipedia articles that describe, in a balanced way, what is said in all reliable sources about each topic."-Avathaar (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Avathaar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --JWSchmidt (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

continuing old conversations

professional qualifications and licenses

This thread started on another page

I inserted a WHO document which showed that professional qualifications and licenses are needed in most countries, which was accepted and that's why I asked that the term, "quackery" be removed. <another topic removed - JWS> -NootherIDAvailable (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you satisfied with Homeopathy#Regulation and prevalence and Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy or do you think more needs to be said about licensing and government regulation of homeopathy? What is the "WHO document" you mentioned? --JWSchmidt (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear John,

Thanks for taking all the brickbats and still helping me.

The WHO document talks of regulation in different parts of the world.

The wikipedia articles don't mention that professional qualifications and licenses are needed in most countries (this is a must in India).

Thanks again for all the help.

Regards,

Avathaar (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to this particular "WHO document"? I agree that Wikipedia should describe homeopathy in India, since it is well known that India is a leading nation for the use of homeopathy. --JWSchmidt (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Avathaar is obviously referring to this. This document has long been a reference for Homeopathy, where it is currently footnote 7. (By the way, I am watching this talk page and there should normally be no need to send me email, especially not with long documents that are also on the web. I agree that the WHO document supports mentioning Hippocrates, but since it's not a particularly reliable source on the history of medicine we can't use it to say homeopathy is based on Hippocrates. Perhaps we can add somewhere that he had similar ideas, though.) --Hans Adler (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AN thread started on User:Dr.Jhingaadey

A thread has been started to discuss this whole matter:

Appropriateness of allowing multiple banned sockmaster Dr.Jhingaadey to return

-- Brangifer (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

~~{{tn|helpme}}~~In the article on homeopathy every statement has been criticized, not to mention inflammatory terms like placebo therapy, pseudoscience and quackery (scientific studies which show it is effective aren't being allowed into the article)-I hope you can do something to make it as neutral as the articles on osteopathy, naturopathy and chiropractic.-Avathaar (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above seems to totally contradict your statement number 3 at the top of this page. 龗 (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

request for User:龗: Can you explain what you mean? I do not see the contradiction. --JWSchmidt (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with 龗...whilst "quackery" has been a term facing considerable dispute on the homeopathy talk page, "placebo" and "pseudoscience" are very well established by high-quality sources. Avathaar's hyperbole (that scientific studies supporting homeopathy "aren't being allowed into the article") is divisive and incorrect. The "Research on medical effectiveness" section draws extensively from sytematic reviews and meta-analyses of the literature precisely because there are hundreds of primary research articles from which it's remarkably easy to cherry-pick data. The reviews overwhelmingly note that the measured efficacy homeopathic treatments negatively correlates with the design quality and power of clinical studies.

This is bordering on advocacy (in violation of #3 above), in my opinion, because it's clearly a "personal partisan point of view" with no attempt at providing any evidence to support his claims. It's merely an assertion that others are doing bad things and a call for someone to "do something" on his behalf.

If Avathaar wishes to suggest inclusion of any source(s) not currently used, or an alternate interpretation of those that are, he would be wise to demonstrate some familiarity with reliable sourcing, especially as it pertains to scientific and medical claims. Let me assert this now: do not post that giant list of studies that you've spammed a dozen times before. Pick an article--a review would be strongly preferred--and present an accurate and neutral description of the work. — Scientizzle 15:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He said, "scientific studies which show it is effective aren't being allowed into the article", which I suspect can probably be demonstrated from the edit history. The terms 'quackery', 'placebo' and 'pseudoscience' can be inflammatory when mis-used. The issue of how these terms are used in the Homeopathy article is a valid topic for discussion. I think this page should try as much as possible to function as a place for discussion of specific suggestions for how to improve Wikipedia articles. Is there an important scientific study that should be mentioned in the Homeopathy article but is not there yet? Is there a better way to discuss the placebo effect in the Homeopathy article? Are terms like 'quackery' being correctly used to describe quackery or are they being used without adequate care? --JWSchmidt (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's been banging this drum ("Every statement is criticised and no defense is allowed") for months now (i.e., [1][2]) without ever offering anything specific or constructive in the way of supporting data or workable suggestions. I agree that, if this experiment is to work, this location should be a place for discussion of article improvements...However, I'm still waiting for any evidence that this editor is willing to discuss specific improvements without resorting to petulant allegations of bad-faith editing and conspiracies. I don't think it's a good sign that Avathaar's first foray into this new plan is a re-hash of the same ol' stuff from the last year; my hope is that it changes...

Avathaar, my support for this endeavor--your mentorship by JWSchmidt--will be strengthened if you can provide valid, useful critiques of the article and reasonable (policy-based) suggestions for improvement; it will evaporate quickly if you choose to continue in the manner of this thread's opening statement. Please take JWSchmidt's questions seriously. — Scientizzle 18:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the plan was to keep the disruption to a minimum by Avathaar staying on his talk page. If we start fighting the same old battles here that we used to do on the homeopathy talk page, it seems to defeat the purpose. I thought it was implicitly part of the contract that we don't do this. In the same way that it was implicitly part of the contract that canvassing using the helpme template is simply not on. Apart from that there seems to be the danger of a many cooks effect. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed a violation of his promise above. He is using exactly the same message he has used dozens(?) of times now in his disruptive campaign to enlist meatpuppets. Just because he's enlisting meatpuppets now from this page doesn't make it any better. On the contrary, he's violating an agreement. He shouldn't be discussing the topic of homeopathy at all. This just goes to show that he doesn't understand the real meaning of the promise above which he didn't compose himself, and he obviously hasn't learned what our policies mean. The issues he mentions have been dealt with repeatedly. The use of the words he objects to have also been dealt with and this isn't the place to rehash it.

It's time to reinstate the indef ban. BTW, I have disabled the "helpme" template. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This is indeed a violation of his promise", "he's violating an agreement" <-- I do not see the "violation". Can you explain what you see as a "violation"? "he's enlisting meatpuppets now", "He shouldn't be discussing the topic of homeopathy" <-- I do not agree with either of these statements. My hope is that this page will allow for exploration of specific proposals for improving articles, including the Homeopathy article. "The use of the words he objects to have also been dealt with and this isn't the place to rehash it", "It's time to reinstate the indef ban" <-- I do not agree with either of these statements. If the topics of discussion on this page are not of interest to you, maybe you should stop reading this page. I remain interested in hearing specific suggestions for improvement of the Homeopathy article in areas such as which studies to mention, how to correctly use terms like "quackery" in the article and how to reasonably balance the desire of Wikipedia readers to learn what homeopathy is with the desire of some Wikipedians to tell readers what to think about homeopathy. --JWSchmidt (talk) 04:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Realize that this must not have any influence on the homeopathy article. Such discussions should happen at the article's talk page, with the input of the other editors. Since these discussions have already happened many times with this same user, this is just more disruption. He'd better begin to show some sign that he understands NPOV. Have you tried to teach him anything yet? You are apparently supposed to be functioning as his mentor. Are you doing that? Have you told him not to return to his old arguments and habits that have gotten him into trouble, because that's what he has just done. That you don't realize this indicates that you don't know his history and are unqualified to act as his mentor. You're acting in ignorance and therefore are acting as his defender, which is very improper. You're supposed to be teaching him how to do things right here, not to merely defend him. You're supposed to be representing Wikipedia, not him. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"this is just more disruption" <-- what is being disrupted? "Have you tried to teach him anything yet?" <-- yes. "Are you doing that?" <-- I've been asking him to make specific suggestions for how to improve Wikipedia. Its up to him to that. If you have other strategies, feel free to help provide guidance. "acting as his defender" <-- I'm happy to work with Wikipedia editors who are making an effort to improve the encyclopedia, even when they do not yet understand all the rules. --JWSchmidt (talk) 06:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for defending someone who doesn't know all the rules yet, John. I'd posted about some studies from this web-site: http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/research/the_evidence_for_homeopathy.html but it was unacceptable to the critics/skeptics-they want only negative stuff to be in the article. Please read the articles on osteopathy, naturopathy and chiropractic, you will realize that they're pretty NPOV, but the article on Homeopathy isn't. You may wanna read what other encyclopediae like http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/270182/homeopathy and http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Homeopathy have to say about homeopathy-Avathaar (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can help on that one: the problem with using that site as a reference is because it's an advocacy group [3]. While the content might be quite good, it's generally not appropriate to use for an article reference. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John, abusing the helpme template in this way is a definite violation. I hope that Dr J completely ceases this disruptive behaviour as he is actively harming his cause (as Whig said), and it shows he is still, after KBs of text, only interested in his version of WP:THETRUTH. I have yet to see DrJ make any effort to improve the project, only subvert it. Verbal chat 14:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"abusing the helpme template in this way" <-- I do not understand your claim of "abuse". Please explain the abuse. The Wikipedia welcome template (see above on this page) invites editors to get help by using "Wikipedia:Questions" the user talk page of the person leaving the welcome message or use the "{{helpme}}" template. Of these three options, the only one available to "Avathaar" was to use the help template. I feel when he used the help template he raised valid concerns about Wikipedia content. --JWSchmidt (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It goes against his promise above, and the helpme template is not for content issues. None of those options are open to DrJ for this kind of behaviour. You should explain that to him rather than defend him. Verbal chat 16:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I am wrong, but it looks to me as if both sides here are looking for ways to disagree for the sake of disagreeing. Why can't we simply all agree that he shouldn't use the template since it's against the spirit of the agreement and JWSchmidt being around is more than enough, that he may well not have been aware that we would object, and that he is now instructed unambiguously not to use the template again? --Hans Adler 17:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"it's against the spirit of the agreement" <-- I suppose it depends on questions such as what you think a "specific suggestion" is. I have been trying to get "Avathaar" to be more specific and suggest published studies that might be mentioned in Wikipedia articles. Comparing a few Wikipedia articles and suggesting that it might be possible to improve the Homeopathy article by making it as good as other articles seems like a reasonable suggestion even if it is not the kind of specific suggestion I am looking for. --JWSchmidt (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problems above addressed at noticeboard

See The experiment isn't working, so reinstate ban -- Brangifer (talk) 02:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm allowed to post there, so I'll stick to this page. John, I hope you've realized that even some of the Admins, like Scientizzle, Verbal and Tim Vickers are not neutral-I just hope you can lift the ban on me eventually. Verbal aka sesquipedian verbiage, in fact, has lost the battle on chiropractic and no longer posts negative stuff there now.-Avathaar (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle at Chiropractic? What are you talking about? I'm hardy involved there, having only infrequently edited as I find chiropractic dull. Posting "negative stuff"? Eh? Maybe I should put it back on my watch list. From the way you are going the ban looks like being reinstated. Have you now admitted all your sockpuppetry, because NootherID denied he was you. Not agreeing with you does not make someone biased. Thanks for the vote of confidence in promoting me to admin. If you make further personal attacks against me or anyone else I shall press for you to be fully banned. Verbal chat 14:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References for Homeopathy

copied from above in the hopes of actually discussing issues by --SB_Johnny | ^talk

I'd posted about some studies from this web-site: http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/research/the_evidence_for_homeopathy.html but it was unacceptable to the critics/skeptics-they want only negative stuff to be in the article. Please read the articles on osteopathy, naturopathy and chiropractic, you will realize that they're pretty NPOV, but the article on Homeopathy isn't. You may wanna read what other encyclopediae like http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/270182/homeopathy and http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Homeopathy have to say about homeopathy-Avathaar (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can help on that one: the problem with using that site as a reference is because it's an advocacy group [4]. While the content might be quite good, it's generally not appropriate to use for an article reference. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avathaar: Can you list here (below) one or two specific studies that you think should be mentioned in Wikipedia? I would like to discuss studies of this type which I think go a long way towards explaining the popularity of homeopathy: Homeopathic and conventional treatment for acute respiratory and ear complaints: A comparative study on outcome in the primary care setting. This study was previously discussed but I cannot follow the logic of that old discussion, where the claim was made that this kind of study is "meaningless". I do not understand why it is "meaningless" to compare patient outcomes and satisfaction for two different medical approaches. --JWSchmidt (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd posted a whole lot of studies that were even better, which one could download for free from http://www.guna.it/eng/ricerca/indice.htm but that wasn't acceptable either, so I believe that the skeptics/critics want it to remain negative and that's why I'd posted about the article on homeopathy on the NPOV noticeboard in my earlier incarnation (sadly, it was deleted soon after). It does make me wonder how the articles on chiropractic, naturopathy and osteopathy are so neutral?-Avathaar (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may wanna follow the links at http://www.hpathy.com/research/ as well.-Avathaar (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to discuss one or two specific articles that you think should be mentioned in Wikipedia. --JWSchmidt (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the articles on chiropractic, naturopathy and osteopathy are neutral and so, I want even the article on homeopathy to be just as NPOV. I must also inform you that a whole lot of homeopaths have been blocked/banned from wikipedia for flimsy reasons, I hope you can get them back (if possible)-e.g.Amy from the American Institute of Homeopathy, Dana Ullman (you can read about him at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Ullman) etc.—Avathaar (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continues in next section. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about sourcing

I also believe that reference#131, 'Case of Baby Gloria, who died in 2002:' should not be mentioned in the article on homeopathy, because newspaper reports aren't accurate - even if this report was accurate, one case can't be used to paint all homeopaths 'black sheep', imagine if all allopaths were portrayed murderers/manslaughterers just because Michael Jackson's doctor gave him so many allopathic drugs (all together) that he died!—Avathaar (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of a better reference than the Daily Telegraph article? I think that the astronomy blog is not a good reference for the trial; it is an opinion piece from a source that has no authority for such a topic. --JWSchmidt (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomy blog?—Avathaar (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Homeopathy article (reference#131) links to this astronomy blog. I do not think that this meets the Wikipedia guidelines for citing blogs in articles. --JWSchmidt (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bad Astronomy blog is a very notable column in Discover magazine, and is considered just as reliable a source as any other science magazine or newspaper column written by a well-known science columnist. Of course it's his opinion, and that's perfectly fine as long as it is used as a source for opinion, and in this case the wording is clear -- "Critics of homeopathy". He's a critic, so he qualifies. In this case the columnist (Phil Plait) is also a scientist and prominent scientific skeptic, which makes him more qualified than most columnists who don't even understand the scientific method, a problem they share with most homeopaths. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did Phil Plait get his medical degree and what type of medical experience does he have that makes his opinion on any medical issue reliable? He states "homeopathy kills" without providing any evidence to support that opinion. Phil Plait wrote, "whose nine-month-old daughter died because of their homeopathic beliefs" but the article he linked to that claim does not support his claim. Phil Plait wrote,"their belief in a clearly wrong antiscientific medical practice killed their baby", but what evidence supports that claim? If he is a scientist then by his own standards he should provide the evidence to support his claims. In this case he has not done so. If you are saying he can be cited by Wikipedia because he is a scientist then his claims need to be supported by evidence. Opinion of a scientist that is not based on evidence is not reliable. There are millions of people who are not experts in a subject area yet they publish blogs with unsupported opinions. Wikipedia is not in the business of linking to such unsupported claims. --JWSchmidt (talk) 06:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has also been published by the journal (cough) Homeopathy. Claiming he needs a medical degree for us to use his opinions is ridiculous. Verbal chat 06:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Claiming he needs a medical degree for us to use his opinions is ridiculous" <-- Who made that claim? He published his opinion about the cause of death for a person. I'm asking about the basis for that opinion. Why should Wikipedia link to an opinion about the cause of a death when that opinion is not based on either expertise or evidence? Of particular concern here is that the unsupported claim involves two living persons as the cause of death for a third person. Wikipedia has special rules that come into play for opinions about living persons and serious matters such as causes of death. We need to get the facts right, not go out beating the bushes for unsubstantiated opinions. --JWSchmidt (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is based on both expertise and evidence, to argue otherwise is nonsense. Verbal chat 07:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It is based on both expertise and evidence" <-- Please list the medical qualifications he has for identifying the cause of death. As far as I can tell, the sources he cites do not make the same claims that he makes, so I'm looking for evidence that supports his claims. For example, can you quote any medical experts who said what the cause of death was? --JWSchmidt (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I've been telling you all along - that anything negative (criticism/skepticism) is allowed into the article, even if it doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines. I believe the articles on chiropractic, naturopathy and osteopathy are neutral and so, I want even the article on homeopathy to be just as NPOV. For the moment, I'm sure you can add a POV tag to the article, because it contains only the viewpoint of the critics/skeptics. Thanks in advance for the help!—Avathaar (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A "POV tag" is not the kind of specific suggestion for how to improve the article that I'm looking for. I agree that the cited Daily Telegraph article is not very good, but the topic seems relevant and of interest to Wikipedia's readers. Is there any coverage of this case that goes beyond newpaper reporting? From what I read here it does not seem likely that "The infant girl, Gloria Thomas, died of complications due to eczema," as claimed by Phil Plait, the author of the blog. Can we find a source that gives a coherent account of the child's medical condition and exactly what the court case decided? --JWSchmidt (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read through numerous articles about Baby Gloria, and the talk page discusses the matter, including sources. There is no question about her cause of death. You are welcome to read all those sources. There are myriad other sources. We just found a couple good ones that covered the story from different angles and moved on. It should be a settled matter, rather than creating more disruption by digging into it again. This case was so high profile that she deserves her own article here. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no question about her cause of death" <-- I have questions about the cause of her death. I'd like to see an objective analysis of the medical evidence by someone with medical training. "a couple good ones" <-- I'd be interest to see the criteria you are using to rate those two sources. How much medical training and experience did the authors of those cited articles have? "creating more disruption by digging into it again" <-- how is it disruptive when editors try to improve Wikipedia? --JWSchmidt (talk) 05:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<-- That "you" have questions might be interesting to you and for discussion's sake, but it's not relevant to the article. We follow the sources. I don't recall any significant disagreement in the sources I read, and most of them quoted the evidence used in the court case. We can't get much better evidence than that. If you can find multiple good sources that question the cause of death, then they might be good to use, although the relevance is likely unuseful and distracting in this situation. OTOH, if the subject of the whole article was about her, IOW Baby Gloria death, then such a question would be very relevant. Here it really has no relevance. As far as disruption is concerned, improving Wikipedia is always welcome. It can be a problem if matters that aren't really defective are "improved" to further the POV of a banned editor who is only here on very thin probational ice. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be defending the practice of having a Wikipedia article linking to the blog of a non-expert who claimed to know the cause of a person's death, but who provided no supporting sources or evidence to backup his claim. In contrast, I'm asking for better sources that coherently describe the medical evidence. I'd like to be able to quote medical experts who have described the cause of her death. If we had such sources it would improve Wikipedia. Are you actually arguing against making such an improvement to Wikipedia? --JWSchmidt (talk) 06:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A blog written by an expert, published by Discover magazine and articles from which have appeared in Homeopathy and other journals, and books from solid publishers. Remember that WP:BLP applies to claims made here. The cause of death was established in court. Verbal chat 08:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that it was homeopathy that killed her is of course problematic, since it was the lack of proper treatment that did it. We can argue that homeopathy caused this lack of proper treatment and therefore indirectly the death, but it appears it wasn't the only cause. [5] Hans Adler 08:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses the 2 links about Gloria as a source for the statement "Critics of homeopathy have cited other concerns over homeopathic remedies, most seriously, cases of patients of homeopathy failing to receive proper treatment". It doesn't claim that homoeopathy killed her (and neither does Plait, who says she died from complications of eczema, which could have been managed with treatments that were withheld in favour of homoeopathy). Note also that this is stated in the article to be a critical viewpoint. Brunton (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"the lack of proper treatment that did it" <-- Can you point to quotes from medical experts who said that the cause of her illness is known and that death could have been prevented? --JWSchmidt (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The cause of death was established in court" <-- does anyone have a copy of the court ruling and a copy of the medical expert testimony? --JWSchmidt (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, Talk:Homeopathy is the place for this discussion. MastCell ^Talk 15:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with the sources given, Brunton and MastCell are right. Further discussion on this point should take place on homeopathy talk, however there really is nothing left to discuss about these sources and the statement they support. There is a difference between playing devil's advocate and being disruptive. Verbal chat 16:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Plait, who says she died from complications of eczema" <-- What is the evidence to support this claim? Where there medical experts who supported this claim with medical evidence and testimony? --JWSchmidt (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we need evidence to support this claim when it isn't even proposed that the article should include it? These sources adequately support the statement for which they are being used as a reference. Brunton (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"There is nothing wrong with the sources given" <-- If Plait incorrectly identified the cause of death then he is an unreliable source. If he is an unreliable source of opinion and has published false claims about living people then Wikipedia should not link to those false claims in his blog. --JWSchmidt (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of sources for this case, the Telegraph and Sydney Morning Herald are quite in-depth but the Discover magazine blog probably passes WP:V as well, since it is published by a reputable organization. No objection to adding more sources if any more are needed. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What false claims JW?? You are skirting the boundaries of WP:BLP with your unsubstantiated accusations against Plait. You have failed to show any WP:RS or WP:BLP issues with the statement or the sources used to support it, and just seem to be ignoring everyone else - a case of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT? Verbal chat 16:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Plait invented an incorrect claim about the cause of the girl's death then Wikipedia should not link to his blog and send readers to look at his unsubstantiated claims. I'm asking for quotes from the medical experts who testified in the trial. Was there expert testimony about the cause of death? Does the expert testimony support Plait's claim or not? As far as I can tell, the sources he linked to do not support his claims. "You have failed" <-- It seems like a rush to judgment, I'm still trying to get more information from the trial. "unsubstantiated accusations against Plait" <-- Please list all of these "unsubstantiated accusations". --JWSchmidt (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have that Plait "invented an incorrect claim"? <-- That's an unsubstantiated allegation, I suggest you don't make any more. You have been presented with much WP:RS that he hasn't, and it is all irrelevant to the homeopathy page anyway. Verbal chat 17:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"What evidence do you have" <-- I cannot find any evidence that supports his claim about the cause of death. I've been looking for expert medical testimony from the trial that might support his claim. --JWSchmidt (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about this or this, both of which, as news reports of court proceedings, seem to meet WP:RS criteria as "material from mainstream news organizations"? Brunton (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing this source and this source, they both seem to agree that the child died of an infection, which was a result of untreated excema, which was untreated due to the parents' belief in homeopathy. I can't work out what the difficulty is here, could somebody please state it in plain language? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[I misindented this response, then it was detached from where it belongs. 18:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)] I don't know if that's what JWSchmidt is driving at (I guess not), but I see two potential problems: 1) The sensationalist blog post headline "homeopathy kills" oversimplifies the situation you describe and might be misunderstood. 2) An earlier article in the same paper you cited has important additional information that shows the situation is a bit more complicated. (Oversimplified version: "Parents' social duties kill.") Hans Adler 17:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JWSchmidt, the child died of septicemia resulting from severe chronic eczema,[6][7] exascerbated by infection-induced malnutrition[8]. Prosecutors argued that "the couple did not heed the advice given by various health professionals for conventional medical treatment and instead continued to treat her with homeopathic remedies", an argument that convinced the jury to find them criminally negligent and guilty of manslaughter.[9][10] Plait's claim that the child "died of complications due to eczema" is entirely consistent with the facts of the case as presented in mainstream media accounts. My third link even has direct quotes from an expert witness from the trial. Plait linked to this article in his post, which states:

The pathologist who did the autopsy...had never seen a child so malnourished and her condition was at a level more commonly observed in third world countries

This article discusses the testimony of one of the treating doctors. All of these articles were trivial to find and clearly substantiate Plait's claims of the cause of death as well as the parents' refusal to treat beyond homeopathy as the child's condition declined. Plait's opinions on the matter can be attributed to him. — Scientizzle 18:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide some quotes from the medical experts who testified in the trial about "infection-induced malnutrition". The source you cite only says, "all her nutrition allegedly went into coping with her severe eczema". "clearly substantiate Plait's claims of the cause of death" <-- Plait wrote that, "their belief in a clearly wrong antiscientific medical practice killed their baby". Please provide quotes from the cited news articles that support Plait's claim. --JWSchmidt (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can add anything else to this conversation, as sources seem to have been provided that discuss in detail the parents' beliefs and the role of these beliefs in the death of the child and I don't understand your repetition of a question that seems to me to have been answered. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Tim. JWSchmidt you asked specifically for sources that support "she died from complications of eczema" and they were provided. The sources also repeatedly make clear that the parents refused to treat outside of homeopathy, which did not relieve the eczema. "The pathologist who did the autopsy, Ella Sugo, said she had sought advice from experts outside Australia because she had never seen a child so malnourished and her condition was at a level more commonly observed in third world countries."

We do not have to prove the veracity of Plait's claims, only the veracity of Wikipedia's claims. Plait's plain factual statement, that the child died of complications of eczema, is widely supported. Plait's opinions, that homeopathy is "a clearly wrong antiscientific medical practice" and that belief in homeopathy contributed to the parents' refusal to seek out "science-based medicine", are his. We're talking now about proximate and ultimate causation; the septicemia was the proximate cause of death, the court ruled the ultimate cause to be the parents' perceived criminal negligence in pursuit of proper medical care, and Plait believes ultimate causation extends beyond that to the belief in an "antiscientific medical practice" that caused (or encouraged) the parents to eschew "real, science-based medicine". Thus, we can confidently say that at least one critic of homeopathy expressed "concerns over homeopathic remedies, most seriously, cases of patients of homeopathy failing to receive proper treatment" as currently stated in the homeopathy article. Thus, if we accept that the Discover post as a WP:RS-appropriate source for the claims of a critic of homeopathy, and that there are no obvious factual errors in the Discover post, it seems a reasonable source to use to support the given claim. — Scientizzle 19:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What can happen in court cases is 1) the prosecutor makes claims and 2) court reporters repeat them, even if the claims are not supported by evidence or a finding of the court. Then bloggers and wiki editors repeat those claims as if they were facts. I'm looking for quotes from the court testimony of medical experts or a copy of findings from the court. I'm interested in finding reliable sources that quote what medical experts said on the cause of death. Based on the evidence available to me, Plait's blog post makes claims about the cause of death that are not supported by testimony of medical experts. Since these are claims about living persons, I think that blog post does not meet Wikipedia requirements for use as a source. --JWSchmidt (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While those are interesting OR suppositions, where are the RS that make them? Your statement ("Based on the evidence available to me, Plait's blog post makes claims about the cause of death that are not supported by testimony of medical experts.") indicates that you are in possession of such RS. Why aren't you sharing them with us? Until now, all we're seeing is OR and refusal to read the numerous sources that quote from the court testimony. If you really have evidence that shows you know more than the courts, then provide RS to prove it. If there is a dispute among the RS, then that would be relevant IF this were about the yet unwritten article Baby Gloria's death. So far we're still only using those sources to back up a statement in the homeopathy article, and those sources back up the wording perfectly, as has been explained to you numerous times. Now please provide your sources. You are the one making the extraordinary claim (contrary to all the RS sources we've seen), so the obligation is on you to provide the evidence or stop making the claim. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"refusal to read the numerous sources that quote from the court testimony" <-- I've read the sources and, as far as I can tell, the quoted court testimony does not support the claims that Plait published in his blog. Please list the quotes from medical experts who testified about the cause of death; then we can compare those quotes to what Plait said about the cause of death. "those are interesting OR suppositions" <--Please list the "suppositions" you are referring to. "you are in possession of such RS" <-- I don't know what sources you you think I have. I've previously said that I am trying to find some reliable sources because I feel that the sources used in Wikipedia are not very good. "You are the one making the extraordinary claim" <-- Please tell me what this "extraordinary claim" claim is. --JWSchmidt (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting tedious. I'm beginning to wonder what your mother tongue is, since it apparently isn't English. I suspect a language barrier here. That's my attempt to AGF. Otherwise other characterizations might apply. If you really don't understand what all of us have been trying to tell you, just admit it. Then it might be a good idea to move on to an encyclopedia in your own language, since your multiple failures to understand are causing problems. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"your multiple failures to understand are causing problems" <-- Please list those "multiple failures". Please list the "problems" you are talking about. Why should anyone have to strain to assume good faith when they see an editor looking for better references than those already cited in Wikipedia? --JWSchmidt (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is going nowhere. The reliability of the sources in establishing the text in the article has been well established. I suggest that editors interested in improving the homeopathy article go to the homeopathy talk page. That has the added benefit of being under WP:AE so disruptive behaviour can be dealt with quickly, hopefully. I will try not to post here any more, and ask others to do the same, following MastCell's excellent advice above. Verbal chat 14:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you lift the restriction on Avathaar's editing then we'll be able to move to other Wikipedia pages. --JWSchmidt (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

Guys, if you look at what was on this page a day or so ago, JWSchmidt was actually doing a good job challenging Avathaar to find good, reliable sources. Those of you who have been fighting tooth-and-nail with the guy for the past weeks (months?) should really just unwatch this page and let them be. AFAIK, Avathaar is keeping to this talk page, and JWSchmidt isn't editing the article(s) in question either.

There is already another admin observing (namely me), so there's really no need for anyone to interfere with the mentoring here. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 20:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"interfere with the mentoring here <-- What mentoring? Who is mentoring who? RS please!" although saying that, I agree with the essence of the post which is just to forget about this page. My last post above is also relevant. Verbal chat 14:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 197: / Line 197: @@
 ::::::::::::::::: This is getting tedious. I'm beginning to wonder what your mother tongue is, since it apparently isn't English. I suspect a language barrier here. That's my attempt to AGF. Otherwise other characterizations might apply. If you really don't understand what all of us have been trying to tell you, just admit it. Then it might be a good idea to move on to an encyclopedia in your own language, since your multiple failures to understand are causing problems. -- [[User:BullRangifer|Brangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 14:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::"your multiple failures to understand are causing problems" <-- Please list those "multiple failures". Please list the "problems" you are talking about. Why should anyone have to strain to assume good faith when they see an editor looking for better references than those already cited in Wikipedia? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] ([[User talk:JWSchmidt|talk]]) 19:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 This is going nowhere. The reliability of the sources in establishing the text in the article has been well established. I suggest that editors interested in improving the homeopathy article go to the homeopathy talk page. That has the added benefit of being under [[WP:AE]] so disruptive behaviour can be dealt with quickly, hopefully. I will try not to post here any more, and ask others to do the same, following MastCell's excellent advice above. [[User:Verbal|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Verbal'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:Verbal#top|<font color="grey" face="Papyrus">chat</font>]]</small> 14:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 : Good point. -- [[User:BullRangifer|Brangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 14:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
+::If you lift the restriction on Avathaar's editing then we'll be able to move to other Wikipedia pages. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] ([[User talk:JWSchmidt|talk]]) 19:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 == Reminder ==