User talk:Avathaar

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]

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]

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]