User talk:Doc James/Archive 43

Your suggestion at TM Research
Doc: I noticed your edit note re: an inadequate ref for the points on cardio health in the elderly. I am inclined to agree and I have made an edit accordingly. See: Thanks for your input. EMP (talk 23:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks Gandy. Wikipedia is a hard place to edit sometimes. Appreciate your words of support. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment needed
can you clarify here what you meant be "He also had some interactions which were less than positive with an arbcom member who was supported by the arbcom generally for a prolonged period of time who turned out to be a sockpuppet". Dreadstar and Risker seem to be taking rather extreme interpretations of that at User:Jmh649/Will_Beback. 21:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes thanks. Nothing more was meant beyond what I actually wrote. Arbcom has previously had people who have become socks upon it. I guess it was not entirely clear. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying, would you also mind straightening out Fladrif in the his second comment in his response here, I believe he's attacking the wrong party when he mentions Rlevse and not Sam. Fladrif is unnecessarily fanning this flame, which is a bad idea as you said in the section above.  Dreadstar  ☥   23:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've tried to hat that bit, but I'm afraid it'll only make it more visible. Would be better retracted and removed; if my assumption is correct about which arb you were referring to. Dreadstar  ☥   23:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed it entirely, I'm sure it's not what you meant either, and it was too inflammatory to a just-calmed-down situation. Dreadstar  ☥   23:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry do not see anything inflammatory there. And do not remove other peoples comments. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

RA GA status plan
Doc James, you have done a great job updating the RA article. When I compare the article to other GA articles it is easily of equal quality, I even think it qualifies for A quality, and we can take this one step at a time. I suggest we take the following steps 1) Officially submit the page for review on the GA review page. 2)  Proactively reach out on the talk pages to all WP:Medicine members that indicate rheumatology or dermatology as an area of interest and ask if they will review the article. 3) If after 3 days we receive no responses, then we reach out to the broader WP:Medicine community either on the community talk page or directly on the member talk pages.  What do you think?Sthubbar (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * IMO it still needs a fair bit of work. There are still a number of completely unreferenced sections. We also do not use A class at WPMED. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, first of all, do you sleep?  That was rhetorical. I have suggested standardizing the TOC to the WP:Medicine standard and remove the sub-sections.  If you tell which section need references, I will take those on.  We can divide up the work.Sthubbar (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Does it make sense to do some work interactively?
Doc James, do you think it would be worthwhile for us to work interactively on the RA article? I mean use some method to actively chat. As is, when I see you are actively updating, I try to stop updating so as to not having conflicts. You can send me off looking for references, like I just noticed the very first reference is form 2007 and you and I have both seen newer references than this. I have Skype and gmail chat. What do you think?Sthubbar (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Skype and Gmail are same as Wikipedia name.Sthubbar (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure gchat would work. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Participate please
Hi James, may you please take part in this discussion? Thanks in advance ● Mehran Debate● 14:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Definition of Primary Source
With all due respect, I believe your understanding of the definition of primary sources and secondary sources is errant, or at least not in keeping the consensus definition on Wikipedia. Your recent removal of content on Bipolar Disorder suggests that you believe "primary source" to be synonymous with "observational data"? Please help me understand what you believe defines a "Primary source"

Please review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources

Many Thanks CaseInPoint (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Secondary source are like review articles. I am fairly sure this is a primary research paper  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

My coyote senses are tingling
It must be spring. The ducks seem to be back at allopathic medicine.LeadSongDog come howl!  13:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Have watched and warned editor in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Tks LeadSongDog come howl!  17:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

PCOS
As requested I'm notifying you here that I've replied to your message on my user talk page. For future correspondence please watchlist my user talk page so that this back-and-forth is not necessary. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thks Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of RS content
James you have removed RS sourced content from an article on Transcendental Meditation with out discussion or agreement. As well, could you point to the RfC that you say allows you to make this kind of content removal. While you certainly have the right to contest content in these articles, unilateral reversal/deletion with out discussion is of concern.(olive (talk) 05:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC))
 * I was restoring the content as per the last RfC as mentioned on the talk page. See here  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There was no RfC consensus and you've unilaterally removed a year's worth of editor work and agreement in which you could have participated at any time. I have nothing more to say about this action at this point in time. Thank you for your response.(olive (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC))
 * It took a years worth of editor work to write two short paragraphs of this poor quality? I despair. Anyway, the onus is on you to get consensus for the changes, not the other way around, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Your editing at Transcendental Meditation
I haven't seen you around the TM topic for almost a year and I wanted to welcome you back. At the same time I notice that in your first edit (made on March 23rd) you deleted a substantial amount of content along with 10 reliable sources. The content and sources that you removed have been the subject of substantial discussion of the past year while you have been absent. When your removal of sourced content was reverted with the edit summary:''Reverting massive change to article with out discussion. See talk'' ,you reverted again. When your removal of source content was reverted by yet another editor, you moved into edit war mode and reverted yet again even though a talk page discussion was underway at the time. Therefore I wanted to inform you that your editing is in violation of the TM Arbcom (in which you participated) which states:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement/Proposed_decision#Peremptory_reversion_or_removal_of_sourced_materialPeremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess. This is particularly true of controversial topics where it may be perceived as confrontational.] In addition, an uninvolved editor at WP:Project Medicine has examined your removal of TM sourced content and your insertion of replacement text and said itto present a very biased point of view". For these reasons, I think it would be in your best interest to self-revert and join the talk page discussion rather than continue to engage in the kind of confrontational editing for which you have been previously and blocked. Meanwhile I welcome your input and good faith efforts to improve the articles in and around the TM topic area. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to respond to something which is not entirely true. This user you refer to at WP:MED has made less than 50 edits and her edits speak for themselves. The block you point to was before I understood what constituted a revert.
 * The version I returned the article to was the one last supported by a RfC. It you look at the talk page you will notice that their is no consensus for the subsequent changes. I suggest you try a RfC, in fact this has been suggested a number of times. I am unclear why there is hesitance for wider community input. Doc James  (talk ·contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not here on your talk page to debate the content issue with you, that's for the article talk page. I came to politely inform you that your editing behavior is in violation of discretionary sanctions. If you wish to ignore my polite warning and continue to edit in a confrontational and disruptive manner, you have the freedom to do so. Its your choice. Best, -- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 13:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes you are here to threaten me and bring up a block which occurred 4 years ago based on my poor understanding policy at that time. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is based on consensus. I am well aware of your opinion of me per  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keith posted something similar on my page about a related article. But what he may not have mentioned is the subtle (but presumably accidental) misrepresentation of Arbcom. They aren't highlighting any new measures in his quote, they are merely stating currently policy. The only sanctions that are around on TM are discretionary sanctions. See User_talk:IRWolfie- for my comment. Highlighting how many "reliable sources" were removed is amusing, but doesn't hold any value as to the legitimacy of a deletion. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes there is a great deal of subtle and not so subtle threatening going on within the TM topic area. None that arises to anything actionable but we more or less have a block of 8 editors voting together in an effort to intimidate others.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Please note that 4 out of the 7 editors in the diff you have given above have not been editing for about two years now.  EMP (talk 00:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * One has simply changed her name. Another was just loosely associated. But the list is missing a few others. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Will Beback
So he wants a public review, what next? By the way, Keithbob makes a good point. I don't want to "open the door for" for " public campaigns to overthrow the judgements of the Committee, whom we elected to make just these kind of tough decisions" so maybe a public review isn't a good thing. Dougweller (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * With two recent members of arbcom quitting and the committee seeming to have some serious issues the much greater risk is allowing this group to operate in secrecy. Add to that the fact that arbcom's initial justification for an indef ban is, well, exceedingly weak. So yes if banned users want to appeal to the community they should be able to.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Have started a sort of RfC regarding Arbcom's recent denial to grant Will Beback a return to editinghere. I have a number of concerns regarding this decision. One being that it was made without community input and in secrecy and two the evidence to support the original indefinite ban is so weak. Note that I was involved and did see the private evidence in question. It however is interesting to look at the public evidence as quoted by arbcom. Jimmy Wales was also involved in the issues in question and it would be interesting to hear him weight in. Doc James  (talk·contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Your subpage is a mess at this point. Why don't we just ask for something simple and doable: a public disclosure at the Ban Appeals subcommittee page. The last disclosure was Russavia's unblocking on the talkpage, and it showed the votes. I want to see how the votes went down. According to the standard practice these may be announced. This is a situation where it needs to be disclosed. II  | (t - c) 06:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Will has asked for public disclosure of the arb's positions. I am not sure what the exact answer was but since the votes are not up there must be a no in there somewhere. The arb's are more than welcome to join in the pseudo RfC and a couple of them have. Yes it is a mess. It is hard to keep it otherwise with a group trying to silence discussion.
 * I guess there are three main questions:
 * What sort of arb work should be public and what should be secret? If some should be public how should the community request public access?
 * While we all agree that Will has written and done things which were harmful to Wikipedians. He has lost his admin privileges and was banned for a year. He has agreed to not resume these activities and has apologized for his errors push he will remain topic banned upon his return. Does the community consider this sufficient in light of all the positive work many feel he has done? (my pseudo RfC)
 * Do we as the Wikimedia movement think a small group of Wikipedians should be allowed to form a counsels with "supreme power" over English Wikipedia were our only say occurs once every two years as a support / oppose vote? Were the understanding is that they can operate with no community oversight and that we will not discuss there working at any other time, but simply be held to what they decide? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I started a request at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Ban_Appeals_Subcommittee. II  | (t - c) 03:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Current line of research
Up on causes of prostate cancer (PC), here's the list. 1. Fetal prostate stem cell exposure to BPA (causes a perm gene expression, which results in excess production of an enzyme, an enzyme known to initiate PC). 2. High levels of IGF-1 in adult men. 3. Low levels of antioxidants. I was wondering if you knew of research into IGF-1 binding factors as a treatment for PC?32cllou (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Part of this is pathophysiology rather than cause. Do you have refs?  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Just asking if you personally knew if IGF-1 binding proteins had been tested against PC.


 * Now I wondering if you mind me putting something in PC about flax. [] [] [] [] [] []32cllou (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * PS, in a couple of the above full text the authors speak of the western diet.32cllou (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * First one is a primary research source. If you are using pubmed you can limit your searches to review articles. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Question for You
Hey Doc, I am experiencing some difficulties while editing the Reef Karim article. There is an IP address making some odd and unexplained changes including some large unexplained removals of information (such as the entire lead section). Is there any route for getting them blocked or taking some form of punitive action to get them to stop? Thanks. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Have watched. Maybe drop a note on their talk pages. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I did but I have a feeling it is going to persist so I would like to know what options are available if they continue to make these inappropriate edits. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have watched and will do something if it persists. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated, I asked you and Biosthmors since the both of you are more experienced than I am as Wikipedia editors and know better than I do what constitutes excessive/unnecessary detail in a biographical article on Wikipedia. I knew there was too much detail but not where to cut. Also, the addition of some POV material, some of which seemed copied right off of certain websites, as well as material that did not belong in an encyclopedia raised some red flags. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There was plagiarism? I never edit BLPs. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe some of it may have been plagiarized though Biosthmors has been making extensive revisions to the article so it may no longer be a problem. I'll have to take another look at it. Even if you don't edit BLPs, I'm sure you still know the appropriate channels to go through regarding disruptive editors and so forth and probably know where to cut out excessive detail in an article. All the best, TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Edit assessment
I am doing analysis on the course that Prof. Joordens did "under the radar" last summer. So I'll see if I have time to look at yours. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes it is on Wikipedia. No it did not any support from the foundation or the EP. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Great I assume it is this one ? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Polycystic ovary syndrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Concordance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

April 5th for RA almost here
Doc James, my proposed submission date of April 5th for the RA article for GA review is approaching quickly. I am willing to submit it as is and I understand from your last comments that I think you would prefer to do more updates. If you point me to where you would like it cleaned up, I will help.Sthubbar (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It will not pass. There are many sections that are not wrong but that are without references. Some of the links are dead. It is going to take hundreds of more edits before this reaching GA. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I found 3 dead links using the proofing tool that I can take care of. Please point me to specifically which section you think needs references and I'll work on it.Sthubbar (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No one would complain if every sentence in Rheumatoid arthritis had a citation. Look again - there are many sections with no citations at all, and many more with only one citation on one sentence covering entire paragraphs. Wikipedia content can be written by anyone so content has to be cited to meet GA criteria.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   13:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OKSthubbar (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

U of T class
See my question on my talk page. Colin°Talk 17:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thx for pointing out! :)
I think I understood the difference. If the research is done by people in the same dept. of the same institution then it wont be as credible as the research done by diverse group of people from different institutions. Is this correct?

Thx. I'm just trying to find some solution for my lower back issue but learnt something new!Traintogain (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for MS
I've just made some small additions, but would appreciate eyes backed by a trained neuronetwork (if you've got a few moments to spare). Pls/Thx. LeadSongDog come howl!  19:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Made a couple slight changes. It is a very positive statement. Haven't look to see if there are any RCTs that back it up. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * TY. After the whole CCSVI science-by-press-release fiasco, I'm rather nervous saying anything about MS research. LeadSongDog come howl!  23:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

We dont have to wait till someone writes a review. If relevant information is available it must be made available to all readers. We can change once a review is written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.241.226.106 (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Unsure what you are trying to accomplish? Are you an author of the paper in question? The ref is not needed in the opinion of the Wikipedia community. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Psychology copyvios
Would you mind taking a look at this to see if you think it's part of the psychology copyvio problem? I've reverted it because the history of the editor looks a bit iffy to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2013
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

secondary source
I see that many times you and zad are refering to the need of sources to be secondary. After almost each such time i quote wp:medrs that says primary sources are no less important and even more preferable in supporting direct points than secondary. After every such mentions i get no further replies. However this cycle starts all over again with the next primary source i provide. Could we please have a consensus regarding primary sources according to wp:medrs? Thank you. Ryanspir (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure you are required to use secondary sources for most details pertaining to health care. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you reviewed wp:useprimary wikipedia policy?

"Secondary" is not another way to spell "good" Shortcut: WP:NOTGOODSOURCE

Further information: Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent

"Secondary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "good" or "reliable" or "usable". Secondary does not mean that the source is independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, or published by a reputable publisher. Secondary sources can be unreliable, biased, self-serving and self-published.

"Primary" is not another way to spell "bad" Shortcut: WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD

"Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control and published by a reputable publisher.

Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources. Ryanspir (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I second this request for feedback as all of my edits have been rejected for the exact same reason.Sthubbar (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (Tweaked the wikilinks above - please learn how to do this.) That essay is interesting, but it is just that, an essay. The pertinent guidance to follow for sourcing medical assertions is wp:MEDRS. LeadSongDog come howl!  14:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that:
 * 1) WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD and WP:NOTGOODSOURCE should not be used?
 * 2) Do you mean that they are not Wiki policies? What do you mean by simply calling them "essays" please? Thank you. Ryanspir (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Have a look at WP:Wikipedia essays and WP:The value of essays. In short, no, essays are not policies or even guidelines. They are just someone's opinion. That doesn't mean they aren't useful or shouldn't be considered, but they are advice rather than rules. CarrieVS (talk) 10:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm lost here, how can I follow it's advice if it's somehow contradicts the wp:medrs policy? And what is the forum that discusses changes to wp:medrs please? Ryanspir (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Basically, you can't. The advice in essays is one or more editors' interpretation of policies or ideas about best practice. Following it is not a requirement, and it hasn't gained community consensus, so other people may disagree. It also may not be applicable to every situation: for instance, the essay you cited is not specific to medical information, which is held to particular standards. Policy - in this case MEDRS - comes first.
 * The first place to discuss possible changes to any page - including policies - is the relevant talk page. CarrieVS (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:MEDRS is a guideline where "occasional exceptions may apply", not a policy. WP:IGNORE is a policy. Even MEDRS allows the cautious use of primary sources in certain situations (see WP:MEDREV).  Clearly high quality secondary sources if available are strongly preferred. At the same time it is important to keep in mind that secondary sources are not automatically better than primary sources. Boghog (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Boghog, in my experience, it is almost never helpful to be nerdy wrt the distinction of guideline/policy or getting those few exceptions where primary research papers are useful/allowed just right. It is nearly always a warning sign when folk start citing WP:IGNORE or WP:NOTCENSORED. More helpful is to look at the context. What is the issue this editor is having? Whenever someone wants to deflate WP:MEDRS for being just a guideline, then perhaps they want to look at WP:WEIGHT or WP:PSTS. A primary research paper cannot establish its own WEIGHT and neither can the judgement of editors. Secondary sources are absolutely the bedrock of our sourcing both in terms of what, if and how much we say. That's policy. Colin°Talk 10:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Colin, I resemble that remark :-) I wish to point out however that I was mainly responding to CarrieVS. I agree secondary sources are strongly preferred when it comes to medical articles, but what I object to is extreme adherence to guidelines. Furthermore WP:PSTS also allows careful use of primary sources. One weakens the argument against primary sources by over stating it.  Boghog (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For major topics there are lots of secondary sources so generally primary sources are not needed. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * See Dreyfus model of skill acquisition. The problem with the policy wonks (myself included) is that we often want to show off our Expert grasp of policy and appreciation of the finer details. The expert pointing out the few exceptions to the rule is invariably making things worse. The Novice just sees conflicting advice that doesn't help them solve the problem they have: they are almost certainly using the wrong kind of sources. -- Colin°Talk 13:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that good secondary sources might be preferable over primary sources. However I dispute the point that Doc James and Zad68 seemingly automatically disqualify all primary sources in an arbitrary way. Thank CarrieVS, I think it's really the time to update medrs to give more breathable air to alternative medicine article. Many, many editors have mentioned that alternative medicine articles are having really difficult times on the Wikipedia. My general idea is that alternative medicine articles shall be allowed to state the claims for different substances with attribution and remarks in case these claims hasn't been proven. But of course, this line is a bit off-topic here, so we may discuss it on the wp:medrs talk page as you have suggested. Ryanspir (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If the goal here is to promote something beyond its evidence base you will have trouble. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That is certainly a wrong interpretation of my proposal. It's the right selection of wording, such as: According to amazon reviews 125 out of 200 users who reviewed D-mannonse has written that it has provided "miraculous cure" to their bladder conditions. In that way, there is an attribution and there is are no claims. It's the conduction of the facts. IMHO. Ryanspir (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ryanspir and regarding this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiovascular_disease) - how are these NOT primary sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiovascular_disease#cite_note-51 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiovascular_disease#cite_note-52

And despite this, my primary source gets deleted!!! (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2631578/) This is a good primary source - even if only proving Vitamin C is good at PREVENTING heart disease by reducing levels of C-reactive protein (a known contributor to heart disease and a bigger contributor than even cholesterol).--41.118.110.161 (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to the abstract only - on the same website - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2631578/?report=abstract --41.118.110.161 (talk) 10:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I have reinstated some of my previous conclusions concerning Vitamin C and heart disease, although focused more on prevention and not treatment or cure, but have this time used the following secondary source which refers to the same primary source I used and that you considered too primary. Secondary source I have now used: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081113091630.htm --41.118.110.161 (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Have reverted these edits here as they introduced plagiarism and edits were based on the popular press / poor primary sources. For example this text " a study led by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, adds to the evidence that vitamin C supplements can lower concentrations of" is exactly the same as this source . Have protected the page in question. Please get consensus here before you make further changes.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Can we avoid using the word "Alternative Medicine"?
Doc James, I notice on the Osteoarthritis page there is management called Osteoarthritis. I have checked the page Alternative medicine and I completely agree with "There is no coherent, consistent and widely accepted definition of alternative medicine." Is Wikipedia a collection of American knowledge, Western knowledge, or human knowledge? I hope the last one. As a source of human knowledge the word "alternative" will change depending on the culture. In the US, Chinese Traditional Medicine is "alternative" and in China it is mainstream. I propose avoiding the term completely like in the Rheumatoid arthritis where the term "other therapies" is used. Ideally, I would like to propose 3 categories 1) Proven treatments  2) Possible treatments  3)  Unproven treatments.  Category 1 would be for treatments with secondary sources supported by random controlled trials.  Category 2 is for treatments that have 1 or more random controlled trials and lack a secondary source.  Category 3 is for any other suggested treatments that lack any random controlled trials. What do you think?
 * I am happy with the term alternative medicine. Feel free to post at WT:MED Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds like you support the idea that Wikipedia is a source of Western knowledge since Chinese Traditional Medicine is decidedly not alternative for at least 1.3 billion people. From what I know much of it probably fits in the category #3 I propose, and that is something completely different than calling it "alternative".  Thanks for sharing your opinion.192.204.198.41 (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a source of the science of medicine. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Doc James, I completely agree with you about the idea of science of medicine. My point is that the opposite of "Alternative" is often considered "Main Stream".  For example, men wearing skirts is considered "Alternative" in the US.  In Scotland it is "Main Stream".  "Alternative" is a poor choice of words as it is strictly American/Western centric. The work "Non proven" is a scientific term.  "Alternative" is a non-scientific term, even defined as I mentioned above by Wikipedia as hard to define.  Does that make more sense that I agree with you about being scientific and it is precisely because "Alternative" is a non-scientific term and saying "unproven" is more scientific?Sthubbar (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We discuss the science of alternative medicine as well. And there is often a fair bit of it. Some alt med has supportive evidence, some has none supportive evidence and some has no evidence at all. I do not see the break down you mention as an improvement. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Doc James, I'm objecting to the word "Alternative". Do you remember when crayons used to have a color called "Flesh"?  That's right when I was young my Crayola crayons had a pinkish color written "Flesh" on the side.  Can you understand why some people might take offense to this?  Same thing with "Alternative".  Your "alternative" is not so for billions of people.  Cold and hot are also non-scientific words.  Are you starting to get the point?111.199.96.60 (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We reflect common English usage. Other languages are free to do things differently. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Doc James, you missed the point. Flesh is also common English usage.  More accurately you are saying common Western usage, which would be the same as saying common Caucasian usage for Flesh.  Both of these terms are perfectly acceptable to you as part of both groups.  Can you not see how both of these terms are unscientific?  I think you take pride in being scientific.  Wikipedia itself claims that alternative is hard to define.  It is a culturally racist and offensive term.  Would you call Socialism an "alternative political theory"?  Would you call Hebrew an "alternative language"?  Would you call well developed mammary glands as "alternative development"?  Assuming the majority of a country accepts capitalism, speaks English and is male, then all of these could rightfully be called alternative.  It says nothing scientific about the statements.  Please try and put your self in the place of the minority that were playing with flesh colored crayons.  Why do you want to cling to a non-scientific offensive Western term?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sthubbar (talk • contribs) 23:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Alt med" is not an insult and many within the field refer to themselves as such. Feel free to ask for wider input. There was support for its usage on Wikipedia here Talk:Alternative medicine Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The initial feedback for the use of "Alternative medicine" is "It's an alternative to evidence based medicine" which I can totally agree with. Therefore, none of the information I am adding, except for acupuncture fit this definition as I am providing secondary, reliable, evidence based sources.  Therefore I plan to remove all of those lines from rheumatoid arthritis out of the "Alternative medicine" header and put something like "Other treatments".  Do you agree?Sthubbar (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No I do not agree. Feel free to ask at WT:MED if you want another opinion. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the idea of the motion, sounds logical to me too. Here is a joke: A Chinese man who has returned from USA was asked, what has surprised him most. He said: "The majority of the people there have strange eyes." However, I agree with Doc James that his talk page may not be the best venue for the discussion. Ryanspir (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)