User talk:FiachraByrne/Archive 6

Please comment on Talk:Francis Bacon (artist)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Francis Bacon (artist). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Istanbul
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Istanbul. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of indigenous peoples
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of indigenous peoples. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Prime Minister of Croatia
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Prime Minister of Croatia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

However...
Your comment, which I am near full agreement with, ends with an unfinished sentence, "However..." ParkSehJik (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Oversight on my part. I'll respond to your other points on the article talk-page. FiachraByrne (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

My, what an interesting sandbox you have
My, what an interesting user page sandbox you have. The topics indicate you must have an informed awareness of many things other editors seem to take a position on as "common knowledge", e.g., at Wikiproject medicine, where MD editors are calling me foul names (e.g., calling my MEDRS edits an "attention seeking rant") because it is common knowledge that bipolar disorder is a real mental category, that it is unquestioned that it is a lifelong condition (interesting as to the scientific methodology used to get than into the "common knowledge" data base), and that if real, attachment of the term "disorder" has so much empirical evidence that questioning it, even with MEDRS sources, violates WP:COMMON SENSE. I am kind of new here. Perhaps you can support such AGF comments as here and here with RS sources, to refocus discussion off of me, and onto the content and sources of my edits. I expect the editors making the attacks on me, not on what I say and my sources, will come around over time, as they actually read the sources. But that takes time, time now being taken up by attacks on me not my edits without AGF. ParkSehJik (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Re your comment in relation to perennial attemps to keep efficacy claims out of alt med articles
Re your comment in relation to perennial attemps to keep efficacy claims out of alt med articles, of which you might not have been aware, MEDRS inclusion standards need to be uniformly enforced or alt med martketers will cite unfair and inconsistent application of MEDRS for qualifying alt med articles. I started a discussion by quoting you out of the context of your comment, but only to raise the issue for discussionhere. ParkSehJik (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:United States. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Crown of Castile
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Crown of Castile. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Psychiatry community services
Category:Psychiatry community services, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bethlem Royal Hospital, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page See (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) 11:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Attribution
Hi, you created User:FiachraByrne/Iatrogenic_psychiatric_treatments through the wrong way and so it will violate the CC by SA if the other page is deleted. You need to preserve the edit history, so you require userfy of the current article (this is usaully done post-AfD by the closing admin on request). I would suggest deleting it and then requesting the userfying. See Userfication. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi IRWolfie. The statement 'it will violate the CC by SA' is meaningless to me. Point is taken, however, and I'll delete that page. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Aha, sorry about that, the CC by SA is one of the licenses all wikipedia content is under (editors hold the copyright for their edits but release it under a license much like the GPL for software). See WP:CC-BY-SA. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you but evidently I'm suffering from an acronym deficit. What's a GPL? How goes the policing of the medical fringe? FiachraByrne (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep
He hasn't edited for 8 hours or so. I'm hoping he'll heed my advice without me having to present a case or invoke admin action. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah OK. I've hardly gone through them exhaustively but I haven't seen any edits likely to invoke calls for a block yet ... FiachraByrne (talk) 11:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I quoted you again in a more abstract context
''"particularly poorly defined in the relevant Wikipedia policies. ParkSehJik (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL. I'm flattered but ... well it is poorly defined I think. FiachraByrne (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, SandyGeorgia is correct in saying that the principal problem is the edit pattern rather than assumptions about your point of view. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am off and reading. ParkSehJik (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the principal problem is a learning curve, and lack of knowledge of strange edit histories for certain articles. Re POV, POV is like a pair of underpants, it should be changed daily. ParkSehJik (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at it as a learning curve is probably more appropriate. On a separate note, you might find the following article on the concepts underlying psychiatric classification interesting: . FiachraByrne (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and interesting reading so far. One of the puzzling issues in psychiatry journal publications is that what is basically an evidence-base-free philosophy paper is turgidly written, then glossed over by others who assume it as medical fact, then this entire process is lost, and furture "studies" go on resting on absolutely no foundation at all. Do you know of any RS relevant to the absence of comparative assessment of different DSM topics, for example, those where no one would question the scientific legitimacy of the category as disease, or question the efficacy studies of the treatment, which exist side by side with utter nonsense categories and preposterous treatments, all without indication of this difference? Another question, is there any RS you know of as to the percent of people who go in, and come out without a precription? There should be at least one such a study, given declarations of "prevalence" in the population, e.g., of bipolar. What I hear in private conversations with practitioners seems to be entirely absent in the sources is entirely different than. Also, do you know of any RS on this phenomenon, which might be described as the "no opponents" model for diagnosis? ParkSehJik (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of a comparative analysis of DSM categories and treatments in the manner that (I think) you have indicated, no. Where data is available you mostly get meta-analyses of the validity of a given diagnostic category and possibly its subtypes or they'd evaluate whether there's a valid distinction between two overlapping diagnostic constructs (e.g. Generalised Social Phobia and Avoidant Personality Disorder). They're supposed to do field trials of the draft DSM categories but I haven't looked at those at all. Ian Hacking has a nice treatment of what he terms transient mental illness, kind of equivalent to culture-bound syndromes, that might be relevant.
 * There may be but I'm not aware of any such study. There is a huge variety of prescribing patterns and much of this variation appears to be independent of clinical presentation. Not that physicians necessarily follow such models but if a diagnosis is given you're supposed to follow whatever best practice has been defined for that condition - e.g. the NICE Guidelines in the UK. So that may mandate a given treatment. There are always complaints that GPs don't follow such guidelines, however. Unsurprisingly, prevalence rates have changed dramatically with different instruments, measures, definitions and treatments of psychiatric disorders. Moreover, many populations don't just passively receive a diagnosis - they may actively seek it and have a kind of self-understanding/legitimation based upon it. Likewise, many patients will actively seek drug treatments. Lots of conversations amongst patients in mental hospitals revolves around the effect or lack of effect of drugs. Placebo effect itself, at least for SSRIs, indicates strong cultural belief in efficacy of these treatments. Bipolar is an odd one and if you're reading Healy's book you're probably aware that manic-depression and earlier proximate diagnoses were once extremely rare (although a large part of the increase is accounted for by bipolar II, I guess, which seems to have colonised a lot of the former patient population that would have been categorised as suffering from borderline personality disorder). Aside from changes in diagnostic systems medical perception changes over time as well. Healy, again, has an interesting study comparing the incidence of catatonia between present-day and historical patient cohorts which is illustrative.
 * There may be many pressures and factors independent of financial reward that direct a physician to support a given diagnosis.
 * FiachraByrne (talk) 12:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

did you vote?
hi there, your vote in ArbCom elections triggered a spoof CSRF alarm. Would you be so kind as to please confirm that you actually voted? :) Apologies for the inconvenience. Pundit | utter  07:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Yes I voted. FiachraByrne (talk) 08:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hezekiah's Tunnel
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hezekiah's Tunnel. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bethlem Royal Hospital, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Neoclassical (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) 11:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Alternative Medicine
Hi FiachraByrne, It seems that I have posted something, either in text or 'tone' that has put you on edge? I noticed that you are "'already getting worried by the responses" at the Alt Med talk page? The intent of my comments so far was to agree with most of what you have proposed there. I agree with your specific proposals, I have acknowledged that the definition of CAM given by Roberta Bivins is similar to that used by many well-recognized medical bodies and have agreed that it would be a good way to start the article. I have also agreed with your comment that the article is currently a mess. As such. I admit that I do not understand what is worrying you. Please don't take this as an attack, I am just sharing my perspective. Please forgive me if I have misinterpreted your comments, but I prefer to work collaboratively and it seems in attempting to agree with you I have caused you to start putting up walls and call for help? Can you help me understand this? Puhlaa (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry Puhlaa it was silly of me to post that comment. I have no issues with what you posted on that thread. I guess I'm worried as much or more by potential responses as anything else. FiachraByrne (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thanks for clearing it up with me. Regards, :) Puhlaa (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I noticed that you may be looking for good sources on the topic of CAM. I would recommend reading this source for a recent, comprehensive, and objective overview of CAM in the US. If you agree with my assessment and decide you would like to read it, the full text is available free at the link I provided. Puhlaa (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Puhlaa, I downloaded it and looks to have some useful background information. For the moment, I'll probably just concentrate on the historical treatments of alternative medicine and once I've finished that article (History of alternative medicine), which should take me up to the mid-1990s, I'll summarise the contents in the main article and see does that give me somewhere to go. The history section is looking more complex than I'd intended as accounting for wider European experience will be tricky. Thanks again for the source. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back!
I just noticed you're editing again after a lapse. Hooray for wikipedia and welcome back! I'm very pleased to see your name re-appearing on my watchlist and that your time away was not permanent  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi WLU! How are you? Can I assume that you're editing some deeply contentious article and locked in various dispute resolution processes? Whatever happened to Paraphilic infantilism (I'll admit I've been avoiding a return to that one)? FiachraByrne (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Doing OK, will be better when I leave for Christmas vacation :)
 * It shames me that your assumption is an accurate one.
 * Bittergrey got blocked, and the page hasn't really changed since April. Naught but vandalism reverts and the occasional drive-by edit.  Have a look if you'd like, without further sources to draw upon I can't see it being updated much more - as several sources say, there's not much scholarly study of the topic.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm enjoying my festive feelings of resentment and cynical curmudgeonliness.
 * Well, I have to admit my "assumption" wasn't entirely unresearched – I had a peek at your talk page. Poor Bittergrey but the situation was way beyond an administrative response. He should have been indefinitely blocked, in my opinion, for emailing Cantor's colleague Kleinplatz. I'll have a look but I can't say I'm relishing the prospect of reediting that one. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

(WLU knows a thing or two about alternative medicine) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, thank you!

WLU I was wondering if you'd have a look at a few points I made on the talk page of the Alternative Medicine article. I'm not canvassing for support but I would be interested in your opinion. Thanks. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Must wait 'til tomorrow. I've been out of the reading loop for about three years now, but happily I will get back on the horse after Christmas - which means I can start reading up on alt med, one of my favourite topics (to bash) come January.  I may be able to contribute to the page in the best way possible at that point - with sources.
 * BG is perma-blocked as far as I know, and also as far as I know the PI page doesn't really need attention. The amusing thing to me was the effort to bring Dr. Kleinplatz into the discussion, only to have her shoot him down so thoroughly.  A Saturnalia miracle!  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 04:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The PI article looks fine; not sure if Alt Med needs more bashing - they've been doing a lot of that ... maybe a different kind of analysis? FiachraByrne (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion about alt med is that it's worthless nonsense foisted on the credulous and scientifically ignorant, defined primarily in opposition to medicine and practiced by the delusional, well-intentioned fools or the deliberately fraudulent.
 * My wikipedia definition incorporates all the politically correct nonsense that the UN, WHO and other major organizations use to define it so they don't hurt anyone's feelings (first) followed immediately by a list of scathing criticisms ventured by skeptics (as found in reliable sources). I think your suggestion to use the OED is a good one (in part because I agree with the definition), but also think it must be followed by the bad and ugly sources as well (UN/WHO being the former, and the scathing criticisms being the latter, IMO).  In situations like these where (despite being patent nonsense) the subject has a lot of popular support and scientifically invalid praise, along with a lot of much more scientifically valid criticism, I think one must use both, closely matched and with detail in the body.  Were we on RationalWiki, we could be exclusively critical - but we are not.  I would, however, consistently give the critical crowd the last word.  No matter what, despite being utter nonsense, the pro-CAM crowd has enough overall credibility, even within scientific circles, that it requires a definition and even-handed treatment that will send skeptics into a frothing rant.
 * Overall I think the pendulum regarding CAM is pretty close to changing swing - it's enjoying an uptick in interest and credibility these days, but that means it's primed to start killing people via untreated cancer. Which means the page will be fraught and contentious for a while, if I'm right, and spend a lot of time dealing with both sides.  Unfortunately I think the best way to deal with the page would be to start digging into books - it's the kind of page where just skimming articles won't really help.
 * One thing I am really curious about is why Bad Science isn't used at all, and why Trick or Treatment and Snake Oil Science are only found in the "Further reading" section. In fact, overall there seem to be a lot of underused recent sources, and a surprising number of sources from the 90s.  It's a pity it generally can't be used, but if you haven't seen sciencebasedmedicine.org yet, it would be a good place to read up on general and specific criticisms and commentary regarding a lot of the science and trials used to promote CAM.
 * Incidentally, I find many of your comments overall a fair bit over my head, I have to spend a lot of time reading them before I really grasp the point. So you may find my commentary rather shallow and like a set of dull pencils (missing several points).  'Cos I'm thick.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not intent on excluding criticism and while I haven't read a great deal of the criticisms of many alternative therapies (well, aside from the obvious stuff, like homeopathy) I'm unsurprised that there exists little to no proof for their scientific validity. I think any scientific claim made for a given alternative treatment or medical system should be subject to rebuttal from reputable scientific and medical sources and that such criticism need not be attributed in text to any particular source. I think there may be a problem using those sources to define alternative medicine without attribution, however, as I think in that context the neutrality of those sources may be questionable. In fairness, there aren't too many places where that occurs in the present article – the most egregious instance is probably in the lead. I think statements of fraud are problematic as, in the absence of legal processes or other measures, it implies divining the motives and character of people where this may not be transparent - I don't doubt its existence but I'd really like to see some empirical data for this to see if such a generalisation is sustainable (maybe the sources do indicate this?).
 * I might be engaging in special pleading, however, and it's all a bit moot if I don't bring the sources to make my points but I guess I'd like a more sensitive analytical definition of what alternative medicine actually is. I'd probably like to make the point prominently in the lead that Alternative Medicine is a dependent category on Mainstream Medicine and what may be alternative in one setting might be plausibly considered mainstream in another such that what is alternative to us may be the mainstream for, say, 80 per cent of the world population. I'd also like to look at the interaction between alternative and conventional medicine in more detail in terms of professional boundary marking and professionalisation in general and perhaps something in more detail about the cultural meaning of it as a system or systems of thought and practice. No-one's actually preventing me from doing that so these comments are probably misguided. What I should do is stop mooning about my dissatisfaction, research the anthropological, sociological and medico- ethnographical literature, get decent representative sources, and add them to the article as it stands. In the meantime I'll try and finish my just initiated revamp of the article on the history of alternative medicine and perhaps get a better idea from that experience of how or if I'd like to improve the main article.
 * I suspect that if you sometimes have to reread my comments before grasping the point that might indicate that they're poorly articulated rather than anything else. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Naw, you write well, but when complex ideas meet my poor concentration, the result is often obtuseness on my part. Some things can't be skim-read.
 * The thing is, despite my rock-solid belief that CAM is nonsense, that is not the opinion of the world in general. I would say all of the threads that you mention need to be drawn together in the page, even though it'll piss off the skeptics.  Certainly, there are many definitions of CAM (in my opinion, "unproven medicine" is the best, but that's my personal, non-editor opinion) and the page is not helped by the profession continuing to redefine itself every couple years (notably, again in my opinion, because of the utter lack of proof and fact that most are also either improbable or outright impossible).  CAM attracts a lot of peer-reviewed commentary and publications, simply by choosing the best I think you'll end up not only roughly representing an NPOV page, but you'll also end up including most of the threads.  Science and critical sources shouldn't be the sole sources used to define CAM, but they should be included and used to expand criticisms.  I would also suggest spending a while working on the body, then rewrite the lead, essentially from scratch and based on the rewritten body.  Too often people jump into the lead and ignore the body, which results in a bad lead that misrepresents the topic in general and the body of the page as well.  I doubt you'll ever come up with a single coherent definition, you'll probably end up more with "the X source defines CAM as Y; sources Z states that it is A while source B includes C".  Attribution and quotes may be a necessity, otherwise nobody will ever agree on the wording.
 * In a critique of my fellow skeptics, I don't really trust most of them to accurately summarize the issues of fraud in CAM. It's to outrageous to our keen awareness of the limits of reality.  Sticking to the sources often gives a more nuanced portrayal of the situation, and has the wiki-bonus of being fairly inarguable.
 * If I understand your point about "mainstream here, CAM there", I don't know if I agree with it. But perhaps that's my biased North American perspective.  Your statements about medicine versus cultural meaning read like something Ted Kaptchuk might write (so his works might be a good starting point for some reference to verify them).  But overall you're definitely barking up the right tree - research should always be the starting point for complex articles.  In fact, in my experience the only way to do a good job writing a complex article is to read a couple hundred pages first.  Sad but true, but at least you end up knowing a lot about the topic.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the good advice,particularly on the lead - I'm terrible at writing leads in any case.
 * Much or all alternative medicine may be nonsense at least in terms of medical claims etc. But that kind of statement hardly sufficiently accounts for or provides an understanding of it.
 * I think the point you make about the instability of its definition is relevant. "CAM" itself presents a particular perspective on these practices, as do the terms "alternative" and "integrative" (and never mind "counter-hegemonic", "natural", "heterodox", "fringe", "quackery", "fraud", etc). They're used to mark boundaries, exclusions and incorporations, and establish certain relationships between conventional medicine (which ain't monolithic either) and unconventional medicine. There is no coherent definition and I won't attempt to invent one - the various definitions are part of a kind rhetoric about medicine etc, often but not solely polemical, which perform this boundary work - marking things legitimate & illegitimate, etc, and which appears to be very dynamic. Definitions are going to be very specific to certain perspectives and social contexts. As you say it'll "probably end up" being defined as "the X source defines CAM as Y; sources Z states that it is A while source B includes C". This is OK if it's possible to give some context as to why they're defining unconventional or conventional medicine in a given way. I guess it's interesting that many consumers/patients essentially ignore the divisions which both conventional and unconventional practitioners like, at times at least, to magnify and just choose whatever therapy they think meets their needs.
 * "Mainstream here, CAM there" - just in terms of the type of medicine and medical practitioners available to the majority of the world's population. Other than an unsupported quote from Roberta Bivins, that's an assumption however which I'll have to research - I'm sure it's more complex.
 * I'll check out the Ted Kaptchuk book when I get a chance.
 * First, though, I'll try and fix the history article which is I've left in a shocking state. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I always found writing leads very easy once a stable, well-sourced and well-written body existed. My preference is even to eschew the use of citations, and use a lot of "but this has been criticized (for...)" in the case of controversies. But everyone has their own strengths, and my way takes a lot of time to read, write and gather consensus on. I agree that simply calling CAM nonsense is inappropriate and insufficient, but when you're essentially wrestling a very wet, possibly soapy fish, sometimes it's nice to have something to hang on to :) This page, in fact most pages, deserve to have not just a "this is controversial" statement, it also spell out the controversies for as many sides as there are.  Most pages seem to run into trouble becuase one side tries to dominate, but most are usually satisfied when a page collects a large number of sources and includes the back-and-forth that have taken place within the literature.  Which makes it curious that so many people try to wrestle the page in a single direction.  Meh.  I've highlighted the part of your reply that I agree with the most - the context is vital, interesting and extremely informative, and must be included.  It's a better, often less acrimonious page - so why wouldn't we include it?!?!? Anyway, good luck, I may duck my head in after Christmas. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Turkish people
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Turkish people. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kukri
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kukri. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Psychiatric terms
Category:Psychiatric terms, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Socialism
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Socialism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 04:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of indigenous peoples
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of indigenous peoples. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 08:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

You have been nominated!
Thank you so much Lova Falk - that is very (overly) generous. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pangaltı
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pangaltı. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of alternative medicine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lancet (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) 11:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment at ANI page
Hello FiachraByrne, not to burden you, but since you provided an incisive comment on a Request for comment on user conduct of hich I was the subject, perhaps you'd be interested in commenting on the following: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents--Ubikwit (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. I think an interaction ban and topic ban would be for the best. My advice would be to voluntarily accept such a ban. In my opinion, you need to move out of the I/P area and find some actual articles to edit. FiachraByrne (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thanks for your input. I think you made a mistake in distinguishing between the List page and the overview page, however.
 * Perhaps I should point out that I happened to start editing these pages due to real life encounters where I live overseas, which tied into my research. I found some errant entries on a Wikipedia page, and one thing led to another, all related to the same thematic content of religion and politics, broadly speaking.
 * I have a background in social theory, working on "modernity and identity", so I would imagine you can see the connection to religion and politics.
 * Clearly the I/P area is a morass, and I have been spending too much time there, detracting somewhat from my research, but not completely unavailing of insights into real world ongoings. It hasn't been fruitless, as I have been able to introduce the concept of the 'identity statement' on the Jerusalem article Talk page, which has been bogged down for 10 years, apparently. It is perhaps a small contribution, but not insignificant.--Ubikwit (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right I should have referenced the List of Indigenous Peoples page.
 * I guess a lot of people would have a similar story of how they first started editing and I edit mostly in the broad topic area in which I have some limited expertise and a little life-world experience.
 * Modernity and identity might be a very interesting topic for an article.
 * Areas such as I/P, of which there are many, are quite intractable. They tend to foster wars of attrition where the most persistent editors who can evade sanctions win out. It's also problematic when I/P or other disputes engulf articles that have no strong relationship to the topic.
 * I just skimmed it briefly but I think your points in the Jerusalem article were generally very good - although I have no expertise on the subject.
 * If when arguing on a talk page you think it is pertinent to bring up the conduct of other editors - something which should only be done sparingly and when absolutely necessary - it is important to include diffs backing up your point. Otherwise it may be interpreted as a personal attack. Also, in my opinion you could perhaps spend a little less time on article talk pages and more on editing article content - although I realise that that's partly the product of editing in contentious areas. While you should prioritise your own research, I think you could contribute a lot to content production here, if you were inclined to do so. FiachraByrne (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dar es Salaam
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Dar es Salaam. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bethlem Royal Hospital, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frankish (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) 11:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Lady Catherine
If you're not familiar with Lady Catherine and her entourage, you might like to be. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah yes I stumbled upon this only a week or so ago. Who's the author of this excellent parody? FiachraByrne (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Giano. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: your rejection of Articles_for_creation/Fate_of_Worlds, about a novel released in 2012.
Re: your rejection of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fate of Worlds, about a novel released in 2012

This proposed article parallels the layout of the four previous books in the Ringworld prequel series. (See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyer_of_Worlds_%28novel%29 (a 2009 book) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betrayer_of_Worlds (a 2010 book)).

The proposed article gives as sources one co-author's primary fan site, the other co-author's longtime personal blog, and the publisher's web page announcing the book's release.

I don't understand why the draft is not acceptable.

SyFyGuy (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)SyFyGuy


 * Hi SyFyGuy. Wikipedia has notability guidelines for books. This states, that for a book to be included in the encyclopedia it must have:
 * "... been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book."


 * Fan sites, blogs, and a publishers web page are not normally deemed reliable sources for the establishment of notability. I'm not sure that the other two books in the series actually meet the notability criteria either. Are there any newspaper reviews of the book out yet?
 * Evidently, however, lots of editors disagree with me on this; for instance, the Ringworld series article has no sources beyond the series texts. I guess they might argue that it meets notability on criterion 5 of the guidelines for books which states:
 * "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study.WP:NB"


 * But that looks like a high bar to me. You could the opinions of other editors however. I'll drop a note at the Novels and SciFi Wikiprojects and see if anyone there will make an argument for notability. FiachraByrne (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I reformatted your text a little (which is normally a frowned upon) so that this section has an article header and introduced a link back to the proposed article.FiachraByrne (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I posted at the SciFi project page and the Novels/SciFi project page  to see if any other editors might have an opinion on this matter. Unfortunately, neither project seems very active to me. Personally, I think we'd really need to find better sources - most likely newspaper reviews - for this proposed article and for the existing articles on the books on the series (which otherwise might be vulnerable to deletion). Niven seems a big name in SciFi - there must be reviews published of his work in specialist SciFi periodicals, no?FiachraByrne (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

back to Fate of Worlds et. al.

Reviews from industry sources for all five books of the series:

for Fleet of Worlds, 2007 (from Publisher's Weekly): http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-7653-1825-1

for Juggler of Worlds, 2008 (from major SF review site SFrevu): http://www.sfrevu.com/php/Review-id.php?id=7166

for Destroyer of Worlds, 2009 (from Library Journal, mid-page): http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6696600.html?industryid=47120

for Betrayer of Worlds, 2010 (from SF industry news magazine Locus): http://www.locusmag.com/Reviews/2009/11/russell-letson-reviews-larry-niven.html

from Fate of Worlds, 2012 (from Kirkus reviews, mid-page): http://www.kirkusreviews.com/blog/science-fiction-and-fantasy/11-not-miss-science-fiction-and-fantasy-books-augu/

Except for Fate of Worlds, the newest of the five titles, these books have many reviews.

SyFyGuy (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)SyFyGuy


 * Kirkus I don't think will meet the criteria for a reliable source (see WP:USERG) - it's a blog and any author can send in a book to have it reviewed by them for a fee (see the "author services" section of the blog: ). It looks more like a promotional service than an independent review. FiachraByrne (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * if you add a ":" at the start of each new paragraph you write it will indent your post. Indenting is used on wiki to clarify responses FiachraByrne (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Natives on Private Estates Ordinance, 1928
Dear Fiachra,

Thank you for approving the article I submitted on the Natives on Private Estates Ordinance, 1928 for inclusion, however I was disappointed that you awarded it a C-grade, which the article quality grading scheme classes as “missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup”, or “it may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research. I’m afraid that I don’t recognise any of these faults and would ask for your clarification. Again, you have put on a note that “This article needs more links to other articles to help integrate it into the encyclopedia.”. This is a fairly discrete topic: I have added a few links, but son’t think that there are many more. Would you like to reconsider, please?

Regards,

Shscoulsdon (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 *  RE:Natives on Private Estates Ordinance 1928


 * Dear Shscoulsdon,


 * First congratulations. I think that it's a very good article on a serious and encyclopaedic subject of a type that is all too often lacking in Wikipedia. Second, don't take these types of evaluations too seriously. Mostly, they're done on an impressionistic basis with only a hurried eye to the actual criteria by single editors trying to run through a whole series of articles. There are two forms of article assessment that have some rigour behind them in Wikipedia: Good articles and Featured article.
 * Basically, I thought there were some prose and formatting issues that had to be fixed before it would reach a "B" assessment. Also, there's a lack of context for some of the items in the text. For instance, the lead (i.e. the first paragraph) mentions the a colonial Legislative council but it should specify whether this is British or not; similarly with the reference to the colonial government in the lead (the colonial government of where?). I changed the reference in the first line from "African" to "Malawian" tenants but I'm not clear if this is in fact accurate either. There are references to "the Africans" in the article but presuming this legislation did not apply throughout the continent the article should specify which Africans in which regions/colonial states were effected by the ordinance.
 * There are more opportunities for introducing wikilinks - e.g. to the 1930s depression in the lead: Great Depression.
 * Before accepting the article I fixed the ref tags. Just for future reference, these should be coded as:


 * The last ref tag needs a forward slash before the word "ref", like this: " ".
 * Again, this is a very good article, don't take the assessment too seriously (it is but the opinion of one idiot) and there are certain items that could be improved, I think. FiachraByrne (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Fiachra,

Thank you for this; I have now made a couple of edits to introduce some more links. I take your points on specifying the nature if the legislature and the geographical scope of the legislation, and have made the necessary alterations. I'm afraid that your edit from "African" to "Malawian" is misconceived, and I have reversed it. The 1928 legislation referred specifically to "Natives", meaning those of African ethnicity (i.e. it was race-based), and in 1953 that term was changed generally to "African", as in the Africans on Private Estates Ordinance, 1962 mentioned in the article. The term "Native" is today generally unacceptable, and I would only use it where it is a quotation, but "African" is in general use among historians to distinguish those indigenous to any part of the African continent from those whose origins are outside it. "Malawian" is both anachronistic before independence in 1964 and a nationality, (I know several white and Asian Malawians). I am sorry that you had to fix the reference tags: normally references can be put in automatically, but not in this case.

You say that I shouldn't take the evaluation too seriously, however, I still have a problem with the C-grade, which is typified in the grading scheme as, "useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study." Whatever I personally think about this, I think it gives a false impression to any reader on the article's general accuracy. I would therefore be grateful of you would now re-grade the article as B-grade.

Regards,

Shscoulsdon (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * I thought the edit changing African to Malawi might have been wrong; I didn't take the time to check it properly. I've reassessed the article and it is now B class.FiachraByrne (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Fiachra, Thanks for this. Again, I apologise fir the extra work I caused you with the formatting, and will try to improve this aspect in future.

Regards

Shscoulsdon (talk) 07:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, no need to apologise, and it wasn't much extra work. Good luck with developing the article. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Use of language to create "facts"
Per the sources (and many other similar sources), the current common usage of the word "alternative" in "alternative medicine" was deliberately chosen as a propoganda tool, by which the mere utterance "alternative medicine" creates a presumption that there is an alternative basis for healing other than medicine that is based on science. This is now the overwhelmingly (WP:Weight) common usage or "alternative medicine". (Read the NSF source, NYAS article in its entirety, and related stuff online about the deliberate linguistic deception to create "efficacy" using linguistic propoganda. There is much about this all over, epecially in criticism by scientists (e.g., those nobel laureates) in the early days. Marketing and propognda by some specific branches has been so effective that "alternative medicine" is lmost becomeing synonymous in the public with "chiropractic" and "acupuncture". And surveys show (see NSF source) that the public and many others have been taken in by the propognda methods. (Agin, see the NYAS article, and the many subsequent articles that came after that). Here is an example of this phenomenon. Aspheric wrote on talk, to justify his assertion that western medicine is based on a theory of opposites, not science - ''"Homeopathy is based on 'like cures like', it's originator (Hahnemann) created the term 'allopathic' medicine to describe the opposite cures disease. This term is now used by some as a synonym 'Western medicine'."'' Therefore, since alt med propogandists incessently successfully got the word "allopathic", "Mainstream", and "conventional" inserted into mainstream usage next to the word "medicine", evidence based medicine is western medicine is allopathic medicine is based on a theory of opposites, because of the synonym so created. Care must be made that this kind of thing does not happen in the article. It is pretty simple, medicine is (or purportedly tries to be) based on science, and alt med is not.

There is a difference in usage of "alternative medicine", which generally refers to acupuncture, chiropractic, homeopathy, ayurvedic, tcm and other superstition based, non-science based practices, and "alternative medical systems" or similar expressions, as esoterically used by a small number of relativist-POV-historians of science and anthroplogists, who are writing in a totally different academic context. There is related academic debate as to whether science is objective at all, but just cultural phenomenon. That debate has nothing at all to do with what is the common usge of "Alternative medicine", which has become so common that it is now a category for medical insurance billing. In the history and philosophy science debates, tcm is not an alternative medical system in some contexts, but in common usage, it is always alternative medicine, since it is based on traditional supersitions together with communist propoganda, not the scientific method. Your other edits indicate you might be one of the editors best suited to help others understand this, and help stop the phenomenon described in the NYAS article cited early in the article, from repeating inside Wikipedia, especilly as I see that you have recently been in correspondence with WLU, another editor who will likely understnd this (his edits indicate he might even be close to some of the authors of some of the sources, but editor identity is specultion we should not engage in per WP policies). 64.134.225.194 (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm supposed to be completing a peer review of an article so I'll be relatively brief here if you don't mind.
 * I think it's inappropriate to discuss Apheric's edits on my talk page without previously notifying them. In fact, most of this stuff should be on the talk page of the article (confusing as that talk page currently is).
 * The first reference I get for the term alternative medicine is from Helen Kruger's book in the early 1970s. I don't know if it's specifically propagandistic – which you apparently understand as a deliberate intention to defraud and deceive – but, obviously, proponents and practitioners of such therapies are going to want to present them in the best light and their preferred terms for self-description will reflect that. Notwithstanding that, alternative also has several negative connotations in privileging a mainstream medicine and consigning another to the margins.
 * "creates a presumption that there is an alternative basis for healing other than medicine that is based on science" Effective or not according to whatever measure, there are other forms of medicine and other medical systems than that which we (rather inaccurately) identify as Western medicine, biomedicine, or scientifically validated medicine. It is untrue to claim they are not medicine, healing practices, etc. if they are not scientifically validated. This is different from saying that they are equivalent or are equally effective therapeutically as "biomedicine" (insert preferred term).
 * They may well be very effective at self-promotion and, at least according to survey evidence, the "public" holds a lot of strange and often quite contradictory beliefs (I'm quite skeptical of a lot of these polls; for instance the NSF opinion poll on astrology leads me to wonder if a sizeable proportion of respondents might have confused it with astronomy. I'm also left wondering if opinion poll responses reflect beliefs that are strongly held and likely to result in real world actions or simply fairly automated, non-reflective replies) In any case, I don't think "propaganda" is an adequate explanation of the continuing and popular appeal of alternative therapies. Of course, where demonstrably false claims are made by proponents the alt med article should skewer these.
 * I don't have access to the Walter Sampson article (access only goes back to 1997), but, based on a superficial judgement of the first page, I don't find the connection between the rise of alt med and post-modernism to be a very compelling one. The science wars were a fairly esoteric, academic dust-up which I don't think is likely to have impacted on popular opinion, much less informed health care choices, to any notable degree.
 * I actually don't see anything wrong with Aspheric's comments which are reasonably accurate and it's clear from the context (and this could be made clearer) that "allopathic is a term used by alt med proponents, particularly homeopaths. It is not and should not be offered as the definition of biomedicine/mainstream medicine.
 * The term "alternative medicine" was adopted, not coined, by medical historians and applied retrospectively to historical events. It's a problematic term for all types of reasons which I won't go into here, but, despite changing historical contexts and meaning, there are degrees of continuity between the "alternative medicines" of the 19th, 20th and 21st century (and, indeed, with the apparent movement to medical pluralism). Indeed, if you examined medical literature from the 19th century you might note that the terms of the debate have not in most instances changed appreciably. For historical analyses of different types of medical practitioners and medical systems it is important not to privilege any given system or set of practitioners. Bear in mind historians generally do not, and are not equipped to, judge themselves the efficacy of any given therapeutic intervention (excepting clinician-historians of which there are a considerable number).
 * I'm not really on a campaign to rationalise other editors. I doubt it's possible, but I'd like an unbiased article that is interested in its subject and not solely concerned with either proving or disproving its therapeutic worth or scientific validity. I'm sorry to say that from my perspective you're, potentially, equally a proponent of a biased point-of-view as editors who are proponents of these therapies (and I carry my own POV derived, in part, from my field). I'm not saying that to invalidate your contributions to the article but, if the task is to create a decent encyclopedic article (rather than say either convert people to alt med or convince them of its gross deficiencies), campaigning for a given side is inherently problematic. From my perspective, there is more encyclopedic content to add to the article than merely the public service announcement that alt med is a dangerous fraud/glorious boon to mankind. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Religious modernism
I didn't notice your followup comment at the An/I I had been blocked for another misstep! At any rate, I wasn't sure what you meant by "misconceived", but don't want to dwell on that concept of dualism. I did want to introduce you to this paper though The Enemy within: Religion, Science, and Modernism, Ernestine van derWall, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences, 2007. I think I'll do a little editing at the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy article using that paper as a source when I have the time. In the meantime, I've managed to hear your advice about editing articles as opposed to simply getting embroiled in talk page discussions.--Ubikwit (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the article; I'll have a read of it tomorrow. As regards misconceived ... well, probably best not to revisit as you probably have a topic ban (I removed almost all of my watched pages recently and I may have missed the final outcome). Topic bans are difficult to manage if people actively want to remove you from here. Glad to see you're editing articles. Occasionally I'm drawn to controversial topics myself but it's rare that anything productive comes out of it. Have a look at Mass killings under Communist regimes if you want to find an example of perverse tenacity ... FiachraByrne (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it is increasingly apparent to me that such may be the case with respect to the "affinity group" I mentioned in the ANI. See this discussion User_talk:Ubikwit.
 * My gut reaction is of course to file an incident report regarding harassment by Mathsci, but I have the presence of mind to understand that a methodological approach to dealing with such an affinity group is necessary, given the fact that they are acting on the basis of an "affinity", not necessarily in collusion. I've introduced the scenario to a heretofore uninvolved admin here User_talk:KillerChihuahua.
 * This is further complicated by the fact that the topic ban I am under does not cover my Talk page or Sandbox, in the same manner as the proposed topic ban here Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents.
 * By the way, how did you like that paper? She introduces people from Judaism and Islam with respect to similar developments, and that article needs to be expanded along those lines, but I don't have the time to go through other references to do that, and relying solely on that paper would probably involve some copyright issue. I did post one quote from the paper in the lead, making that paper readily available to people interested in the topic. --Ubikwit (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm not knowledgeable about the history of the modernist/fundamentalist split in modern American Christianity, but, in my opinion, the van der Wall lecture seems ok as a source for that wp article. TBH, I'm not mad about the paper, although I've only read it superficially, but I think the treatment modernist/fundamentalist is too schematic and it's a kind of disembodied intellectual history.
 * Never mind about "affinity groups" or the precise terms of the iban – just don't edit on any pages where evildoer has been recently editing. Don't pick a fight with Mathsci. Don't start preparing ANI reports. You need to move away from this kind of stuff for the foreseeable otherwise a ban is coming. FiachraByrne (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also the quote shouldn't be in the lead in that article; the lead should just summarise the body of the article - you could move it into the body of the text (perhaps in a quote box?. FiachraByrne (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your candor, but dignity is more important to my life than Wikipedia. Frankly, the affinity group is exhibiting a certain degree of sociopathic behavior, and I won't let that pass. If I get banned from Wikipedia I'll simply start a new blog about my experiences here, after running the scenario by ArbCom. If Wikipedia is tolerant of such affinity group type behavior, I won't be wasting my time here.
 * The paper is indeed schematic, but you have to recognize that in the context of its scope. It does lay the framework for a more extensive treatment of the topic, incorporating figures from other traditions, which is important. --Ubikwit (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said my reading of the paper was superficial and I'm not informed of the literature or wider issues in this topic. Superficially, it did seem a bit decontextualised, a bit idealised, and lacking in purchase. Grand themes may require that but I wonder if too much has been sacrificed to such an end.
 * As regards the other, well, do what you feel you must. I doubt that there's much in the line of dignity to be salvaged from such strategies, however (and why would you really give a shit about what a phalanx of mostly anonymous "editors" tied 24/7 to their LCD screens actually thinks of you?). Personally, in this environment, I respect those who are knowledgeable, write well, and add good content. I edit here myself to the extent that I enjoy writing in what is only semi-serious environment (in the sense that, while I try and do a half-decent job there's little at stake if I mess up) and when I wish to avoid real writing that I should be doing; I don't really do it for any abstract "reader" or to get some message out - it's for my own pleasure. Governance here is basically fucked and the endless resolution processes – which police everything barring content – should be shunned unless absolutely necessary. FiachraByrne (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The dignity part relates more to having been subjected to humiliating inchoate administrative processes conducted by individuals whose lives in cyber space would seem to be more meaningful than their lives in the real world and who are generally 20 years or more younger than me and, though utterly uninformed in relation to the topics, are preoccupied with their self-perceived status on the website.
 * I am, in fact, here to write for the sake of the public, as that is where I feel the value of a website like Wikipedia lies. I only started editing the site because I found inconsistencies on articles with respect to which I had initially accessed to expand my knowledge on the topic. Wikipedia is nothing if not a portal providing viable information to the public.
 * It's not a question of me giving shit about what the members of the sociopathic affinity group thinks of me that matters, it is the fact of their ability to prosecute their agenda here through various illegitimate means that is at issue.
 * Incidentally, the most recent agent provocateur has been proven to be a sockpuppet Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. --Ubikwit (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

One comment from the fog of others at alt med talk
Please comment at that talk page, but so it does not get lost among the mass of recent edits at the talk page, I draw your attention to this, as importnt to monitor so that the main general article content does not end up lost in a fog of detail on theory and NonPlainaenglish esoteric terms of specific alt meds. For example, all a general reader need know about qi is that it is a supernatural energy, not real energy, and details of Chinese Astrology and Chinese numerology can be left for the theory section of the TCM article if anyone cares beyond the fact that it is not an energy in physics. 64.134.225.194 (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I will comment when I get a chance but I disagree with you fundamentally here. I would seek to give a summary of say the main tenets of a notable alt med, something about the practice (as an aside, did you know that ayurvedic practitioners in India, advised by pharmacists, mostly distribute antibiotics) and then enter detail about dangers, lack of scientific validity etc. The topic is alt med and not the failings of alt med (i.e. the latter topic is pertinent to the article but does not define its scope). FiachraByrne (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A clear, perceptive and lucid analysis. I certainly hope you don't peer review one of my papers ! I've become despondent from reading excellent review articles that are clear, readable and describe the topic beautifully and then comparing them to mess i've been trying to edit. I think I've more than paid for my initial naivety and subsequent reluctance to leave a greater mess than i'd found. I'm almost sorry for my carelessness that led to 64's bizarre analysis above. I've left a parting shot on the ANI noticeboard but suppose that the cry of "Why doesn't someone do something" is the silent prayer of every wiki editor. Lovely piece of work on history of alt med by the way.Aspheric (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you're getting some support on ANI so that might help. Personally, I've vowed to avoid those boards unless absolutely necessary and, honestly, I don't generally have a problem with IP editing – although, if the ostensible purpose of IP editing is to keep the focus on the content rather than the editors, I can't say that the IP editors have stuck to that very rigorously. Thanks for the kind words on the very unfinished article on the history of alt med (the latter sections after mesmerism are not my work and I'll hopefully rewrite them). Normally I avoid problematic pages like Alternative medicine as its very unlikely that even a half-decent article might emerge. For that to happen you'd really need some kind of editorial board made up of knowledgeable (ideally expert) content editors that would oversee content decisions. All we get now is oversight of editor behaviour which is quite inadequate. On less controversial articles you have a better chance of writing a half-decent article.FiachraByrne (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * One might also observe that the article consensus - reflected by the ip editor above - is that the history of alternative medicine commences only in the 1990s. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh - in case it's misunderstood, by peer review I mean that I'm supposed to be peer reviewing a wikipedia article - not an actual journal article. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've quoted you (not by name) in Alt med talk. I hope you don't mind. If you do, feel free to remove it Aspheric (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Given the information in History of alternative medicine, the above confirms what I had begun to see. What may be required is letting that article be, as it is, coolly descriptive of the historical background from which the current debate about "alternative medicine" emerged, and re-presenting the current AM article as a description of the current controversy if it is still a notably live issue in USA or possibly elsewhere, and if there are accessible sources from which such an article could be derived and editors willing to start over. It may be thought too frivolous to add treacle well to the History, but in my view, as a teaching and communicating aid, that could be more quadrivia than trivia. Qexigator (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Um, what had you begun to see? Could you clarify what you mean by adding "treacle well" to the history? FiachraByrne (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ...begun to see that What may be required is letting the current AM article be represented as a description of the current controversy. Treacle alludes to 1_remark to Aspheric (5 Jan) that AM is one of the topics which have made attempts over a longish period to improve an article make wading in treacle seem like a walk in the park. 2_ The notable don, mathematician, photographer and humourist Lewis Carroll author of The Hunting of the Snark and the lines "Nor in this was he mistaken, / As the picture failed completely" from Hiawatha's Photographing. According to the source for the treacle well at Oxford "In mediæval times the term 'treacle' meant an antidote to poison, so a treacle well was a healing well." Qexigator (talk) 09:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

On an unrelated matter, I note that Park has been indef blocked for socking User talk:ParkSehJik. I disagreed with almost all his edits but I liked Park. FiachraByrne (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Rape and pregnancy controversies in US elections 2012
Thanks for starting a peer review on Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. I look forward to your comments. Casprings (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem. I'm mostly ignorant of the controversy (at least its detail) which may both help and hinder the review. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Really good work on the peer review. I know you aren't done, but integrating your comments into the article will improve 10 fold. Casprings (talk) 08:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you! The changes you made to the background section were reverted and this also wiped out some of your minor edits. I subsequently rewrote the background section and noted in the edit summary that the content was not WP:OR or WP:SYNTH (I also added a quote box but I'm not sure that that quote should be included - something shorter would be more appropriate). I'm not going to get into an edit war over the issue, however. It's up to you but it might be wise to post on the talk page that the article is currently undergoing peer review. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, just did that. I hope me working on parts of the article you have peer reviewed doesn't interfere with your work.  If you perfer me to stop, I will certainly do that.  Casprings (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and started a WP:ORN discussion on the WP:OR statement. I want to come to consensus as soon as possible. I want to keep developing the article and make it the first WP:FA I have worked on, so I am trying to get consensus on any issue as fast as possible. I do think you are right. Casprings (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You asked for the last time the other controversy section was organized differently. Here it is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012&oldid=525773169. It's basically the same section without the headings. Not sure if that is a conclusion, but I think you are right that the structure of that section needs some work. Casprings (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Casprings. I'm a bit ill at the moment but I'll get back to you about this later. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to think it looks better now. FiachraByrne (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Original research and synthesis at alternative medicine article?
Please consider that your good faith efforts at alternative medicine may be original research. No source says there is any inconsistency in definitions from one authority to another. The fictional “conflict in definitions”, or “alternative definition”, is entirely invented by Wikipedia editors. You might consider that you may be doing original research and synthesis to try to “establish” this invention of a “political definition”, and separately, to establish that it is inconsistent with the definition used in the science and medical community in any way, when it is not.

Evidence of this is that your original research concluded that the description (not essential definition), “a broad domain of healing resources”, is the most pervasive "definition", when it is not a definition at all, but merely a corralary description. “A broad domain of healing practices” also describes evidence based cancer therapies. So it cannot define alternative medicine. Similarly, not being “mainstream or conventional” may temporarily describe altrnative medicine, but it does not define it in any essential way, e.g., TCM may become mainstream or conventional somewhere (e.g. China), and lose the description "not mainstream or conventional", yet it would retain being categorized as alternative medicine since it is not purported to be based on science.

Doing Google searches for expressions to establish that there is a discrepancy, when no source says that there is one, is original research. You wrote - “The definition of CAM as ’a broad domain of healing resources’ is evidently the most pervasive in the literature as shown in a simple Google scholar search”. Your research conclusion is that this exact expression is the most pervasive "definition" in the scholarly literature, which is not accurate. From WP:OR, "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." The position advanced is that there is a conflict in definitoins, when no source says there is such a conflict, and at best there is a different emphasis on nonessential corralary desriptions. No source shares the position trying to be advanced, that there is an "alternative definition". Your search for an exact expression, rather than fully reading the various articles for the content, not a shared expression, discounts that most do not use the same wording to define what is essentially the same thing. None of the first ten sources contain identical wording, so all would count as next to nothing in your research style of Google search without reading. But they all contain the same essential definition, just with different wording. Please consider that a Google scholar search for an expression is original research to estblish that the expression is a definition.

(Please also consider the seaparate point that there is a difference between a corralary description, not mainstream right now, and an essential definitoin, efficacy claim not initally based on science. So doing Google seraches for expressions "mainstream", "Dominant", "widely varying", etc., are all descriptions and do not well define anything.) 75.61.66.237 (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Can this really be such a prob.? There seems to be nothing there which some copyediting of the wording about definitions would not resolve. Is there a risk that such copyedit violates SYN, OR et.al.? Qexigator (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Park. It's nice to see you still taking an interest in the article; discussion is suffering due to a lack of diverse perspectives.
 * There are many sources that state that there are different definitions of alt med, inadequate definitions, conflicting definitions, and which discuss the implications of those different definitions for the object of study. That's easy to substantiate. In any case, one could only evaluate your objection with reference to an actual article edit. Such objections really have no purchase whatsoever for talk page discussions.
 * Similarly, I think it's quite reasonable to refer to Google Scholar search results for talk page discussions and I'd be happy to take that to WP:OR/N or any other relevant venue. It would fall within the remit of WP:OR if I cited the Google Scholar results in the article to support a statement such as: "this is the most pervasive definition"; for that kind of statement I'd obviously need a decent source, which I haven't gone looking for specifically as of yet. There are, of course, other reasons to favour the introduction of the 1995 OAM expert panel definition before others, not least its historical importance and, as indicated by the Google Scholar results, the frequency with which it is referenced (but by no means universally endorsed or adopted) by scholarly sources (of mixed pedigree admittedly) and typically at the introduction to a section dealing with the problem of definitions. WP:OR would arise if a statement was made in the article that this is the most referenced definition based upon a Google Scholar search. When looking at the policy WP:WEIGHT you'll see that editors are actually enjoined to do this type of analysis of secondary sources. As to the nature of the definition – and the sources refer to it pretty much unanimously as a definition rather than a description – that's of no specific concern other than the fact that definitions are so contested, inadequate and almost always politically conceived, that it precludes a simple statement of the type, "Alternative medicine is ...". The ability to critique that particular definition will depend upon the nature of the sources which attack it.
 * There is no essential definition of Alternative Medicine and there never will be: it is not a natural kind, has no essence and its meaning is entirely relational and contextual.
 * By the way if you want to email me that 1995 Wallace Sampson article it would be very much appreciated. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Lobotomy etc.
It's probably best that you be aware of this. I am on a trip for awhile and had planned to spend part of the time going through your comments on the Gage article, but so far it hasn't worked out that way. I still have another week, though! EEng (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Problematic but good faith, I think; I'll engage unless there's a block. FiachraByrne (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, not good faith, actually. Ever since an argument  over whether the pt who shot Moniz had or had not been lobotomized (sloppy sources say he was -- it's a great story! -- but careful sources, with cites, say no) he's been running around randomly reverting my edits all over the place -- see
 * Special:Contributions/87.67.21.139 (see esp. edit summaries for Jan. 21)
 * Special:Contributions/87.67.18.206
 * -- and leaving messages like this [ here and there.
 * EEng (talk) 12:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. Oh yes, before I forget, I'm hiring you to be on my personal revenge squad ] too. Same deal Looie gets.
 * P.P.S. I really like your comments re uses of lobotomy at ANI re uses of lobtomy see below . It's a terrible mistake to think the lesson of lobotomy is, "Look at the terrible things those evil, evil people did! We of course, so ethical and knowing, would never do such a thing!" The correct lesson is, "Let us always remember that well-meaning people, including ourselves, can make horrible mistakes."
 * P.P.P.S. I've modified my P.P.S. just above to remove the unfortunate phrasing uses of lobotomy at ANI which, I think you will agree, might lead people to alarming conclusions. Hmmmm.... Though now that I think about it, adding lobotomy to the toolbox of ANI rememdies might not be such a bad thing. Shall we propose it?
 * Hi EEng. I hope the trip is enjoyable. I'll watch the relevant articles in case there are any questionable edits and intervene if I think it appropriate (I'm not "pointy" however - my edges are quite rounded ;) ). The contention that Moniz was shot by a lobotomised patient, in the English language literature at least, seems to stem from Valenstein's 1973 book, Brain Control, p. 54 (I had a look at it today). Valenstein doesn't cite his source for the claim in this book. A lot of other sources (e.g. Berrios, who can be a little sloppy with dates etc himself), just refer to a paranoid or schizophrenic patient without mentioning whether he was lobotomised or not. I don't have access at the moment to Finger's text - does he cite a primary source for the statement that it wasn't a lobotomised patient and if so what is it? The story seems unlikely, but, if you're not able to confirm for a week or so, I'd be inclined to just stick in a little note into the text stating that the sources are conflicted and we could then resolve the issue definitively at a later date. Hopefully, that would kill any edit warring or other problematic behaviour.
 * Thanks for the kind words about my ANI comments. It's really just a rehash of Pressman etc.
 * A lobotomy tool is exactly what isn't needed - quite the reverse! FiachraByrne (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Zotero
Thanks for invite to Zotero. I would like to collaborate, but doubt whether I have much to offer. I have googled and looks good, the sort of thing I would like to use. However, I am averse to signing up to any website. Wp is the one exception. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks anyway.FiachraByrne (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I have looked at the bibliography you have put in the sandbox. Is that kinda in lieu of Z.? Would like to help with this, please say in what way. Qexigator (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Kind of. I'm half thinking of just drafting an article or perhaps just some article sections but ... I'd really like to finish Bethlem Royal Hospital first; then History of alternative medicine; I'm only at Alternative medicine out of some perverted sense of obligation (to what I know not). FiachraByrne (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Bethlem- that's quite an opus you have there. Alt.m.- while you take a break I could look at the bibli. and make some notes but not meddle. Qexigator (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Bethlem is a clear example of pathological editing. Feel free to meddle in the alt med draft. I can recreate that bibliography if needs be - it's pretty much automated once I've collected it in the reference software. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I should have checked before, but I see the sandbox bibli. is behind UCD wall. It's certainly a list for anyone to work through when time allows, but it provides a useful ckecklist for anyone seriously intent on improving the article. It may be a question whether some who have been editing are used to this kind of work, and understand what is being proposed. I imagine the listed items can be systematically sifted, classified and rated for relevance or discarded. There has been more than one comment to the effect that there is not yet sufficient common understanding about the uses, abuses, limits and purposes of definitions. Even so maybe some progress will continue to be made. Qexigator (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Please (when/if you can spare the time) let me know whether you see the following as helping towards an account of what is currently regarded as mainstream, leaving the rest as alternative, perhaps with regional variations. Would another way of looknig at Alt.m be observing what medical schools are teaching: International Medical Education Directory, List of medical schools, Medical education, International Medical Education Directory, Foundation for Advancement of International Medical Education and Research. For example, is the latter seeking to oust local medicine in favour of what medical schools in America (Western hemisphere) and Europe teach? Thus in Medical school:Curricula are usually divided into preclinical sciences, where students study subjects such as biochemistry, genetics, pharmacology, pathology, anatomy and physiology, among others, and clinical rotations, which usually include internal medicine, general surgery, pediatrics, psychiatry, and obstetrics and gynecology, among others. Would that permit Alt.m. or be ranged against it?' Is there anything useful likely to result from looking into all of that, or would it be a wild goose chase? Qexigator (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a really important aspect of it I think and parallels this redefinition of alt meds, at least in political and institutional terms, from alternative medical systems to complementary ones. Since the 1990s alt med has made real in-roads into medical schools in way that has been seen in the US, at least, since the 1910s. Indeed, as late as 1993 the BMA could define alt med in part as what was not taught in medical schools – an aspect of alt med which, aside from the absolute fringe, is far from the case now. As regards what's happening outside the "West" or "developed world" my superficial assessment is that in most national systems biomedicine seems to have gained institutional dominance but there's often an inability to deliver medical assistance on any scale without cadres of traditional healers etc. However, if you look at somewhere like India, most of what those Ayurvedic practitioners are prescribing appears to be antibiotics etc with "traditional" (actually modern herb industry has emerged in 20th century) remedies making up only a relatively small fraction of meds dispensed. Also, in the UK and lately in Australia there are growing campaigns to remove alt med courses from medical schools. So, I think, the article should tease out what are political disputes for resources, access to legitimating institutions, etc. Maybe I've missed your point? FiachraByrne (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * All that seems very much to the point. I have only a vague notion of what has been going on, like most members of the public (you know, "ordinary people") ...the article should tease out what are political disputes for resources, access to legitimating institutions... Does that mean eliminate from the article, or put in to inform what otherwise may be hidden? Qexigator (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should try and eliminate colloquialisms in our conversation. To "tease out" here means to try and trace, outline, define, write the history of these relations - not to eliminate them from the article. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No prob. as so explained. It seemed a bit ambiguous. Colloquialism can be a good way to communicate complex thoughts. Well anyhow the task as proposed is quite a teaser, not to say challenging. Qexigator (talk) 09:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * i saw this and thought of you [] Aspheric (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes it's a good paper. Jutte has another, freely available, here. It would be nice to get a copy of Bonnie Blair O'Connor's 1995 book, cited by Jutte, as she sat on the OAM 1995 expert panel. OK - sorry I've been neglecting alt med; I'll try and add some more material there shortly. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

1880s origins per German literature? Maybe origins is ambiguous. The only information I know of gives 1920s, so will try and check it out. Qexigator (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Jutte's Conclusion about semantics p.23 noted with approbation. But in Historiography, was anthroposophical 19c. or 1920's? He uses 'idiosyncratic' on p.357, which may be less value laden than others. Qexigator (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not knowledgeable about anthroposophical medicine but German language histories appear to trace its origins to the 1880s. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1880s origins per German literature? Maybe origins is ambiguous. The only information I know of gives 1920s, so will try and check it out. Qexigator (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Intellectual and cultural origins - not the foundation of the society. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, that looks more like it, and the connection between the Society and the work Extending Practical Medicine (earlier editions published as Fundamentals of Therapy) could need some teasing out (at some other time and place). Qexigator (talk) 08:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion you were involved in.
Hi, Fiachra. FYI, there has been a report at AN/I regarding a discussion you were in: ANI#User:Jokestress at Talk:Hebephilia — James Cantor (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh the joys of being an international expert on a topic and a wikipedia editor. Evidently the WP slogan "the encyclopaedia anyone can edit" is being taken far too literally by some. If WP was not entirely dysfunctional this would be resolved in about five minutes to the benefit of the 'pedia. I'll have a look over the discussion and other relevant talk pages and see if I have anything to add. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
When you’ll finish moving sources to sfn system, I’ll correct your translation of their titles, authors’ and journals’ names from Russian into English. It is useless to interfere in this job now, because the most active editor automatically undoes any corrections by a less active editor (example).--Psychiatrick (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Psychiatrick. I'm glad you like the new referencing system. I'm sorry that I reverted your changes during the edit conflict; I thought I had retained them. In future, I'll add an in use template to the page when I'm working on sources/references and remove it when I finish. 14:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok. --Psychiatrick (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You know how it works now so do you want to do the rest of the sources? There be less of chance of transliteration errors, etc. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, install this script; if there are any problems with harv/sfn citations they'll be bolded in red text. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I’ve already tried to move sources to harv/sfn citations and had problems with hyperlinks to websites. It’s easier for me to correct your translation errors than fix harv/sfn citations. --Psychiatrick (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to fix references but you almost have it figured out. The only problem you had was in using et. al. The sfn template will produce et al. automatically once there are four authors. For sfn and havnb, the author last name fields have to match; the same is true when a source has multiple authors. It should look like this:
 * Match the bolded fields.
 * Footnote:
 * Source:
 * e.g.:

This is a sentence

Foonote

Source


 * Oh I think I see now. It's |editor1-last= | editor1-first= | editor2-last= | editor2-first= | editor3-last= | editor3-first= | etc. FiachraByrne (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I’d like to thank you for helping me to introduce the new reference system in the article Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union. Your help was invaluable. I’ve finished the work on introducing the new reference system. --Psychiatrick (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome Psychiatrick and thank you for writing/maintaining a very important and interesting article. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * PS, there's no citation pointing to the Bloch 1978 source (and don't forget to install the script which is invaluable for harv referencing systems; it produces the text in red below when I look at the sources list for that article):


 * I hope I’ll use the 1978 article by Sidney Bloch "Psychiatry as ideology in the USSR" later, so I’ve moved it to the Further reading section. Psychiatrick (talk) 07:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

If you are interested in Soviet psychiatry and its political abuse, you can download the unabridged text of the doctoral dissertation by Robert van Voren, the Chief Executive of the Global Initiative on Psychiatry. The doctoral dissertation is not yet removed from Google Docs. Robert van Voren (2010). Cold war in psychiatry: Soviet political abuse of psychiatry and the World Psychiatric Association (WPA). Kaunas. 135 pp. (pdf) Psychiatrick (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Psychiatrick; I can't wait to read it! FiachraByrne (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Peer review closure
Thanks for asking. You closed the peer review fine - the template n the talk page also needs to be converted from Peer review to Old peer review, which I just took care of. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

stub tags
Please take care not to add stub to an article like More Light (Primal Scream album) when it's already got a specific stub tag. And they go before interwiki links, not after them (see WP:ORDER). Thanks. Pam D  12:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012
I saw you were doing some work on the citations in Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012, Thanks. It isn't an area where I am an expert by any means, and but I know that it needs to be improved. I am hoping to take the article to WP:FA, once citation style is improved and standardized.Casprings (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. After I standardise the refs I'll have a look at what's current at FA for this type of article. Congrats on the successful good article review. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Doing refs really requires an unhealthy dose of OCD. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But watching does help one learn about how to format refs in wiki. Thanks for the work. I added a WP:RS reference where you tagged it for not have a WP:RS source.  I also added a citation where needed.
 * You've done that perfectly. This is a list defined reference system using the r template. Most people use it for newspaper and web sources where you don't need to specify a page number combined with shortened citations for books where you do. You can see a nice version of it here. The main advantage is that you declutter the article text which makes writing a little easier. I'll finish formatting the remaining refs over the next couple of days.FiachraByrne (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Follow up question
If you can spare the time sometime, may I ask if the pre-1920's origin you alluded to can be sourced to any of the three citations in the first sentence of Anthroposophical medicine? I've heard about Anthro.med. for sometime (connected with Steiner's architectural Goetheanum, 1 and 2), but naturopathy only in the last month or two after straying into Alt.med. (and now trying to make some sense of it for the layman). Meantime, thanks for cmts: needs some mulling over. Qexigator (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it can't be sourced to any of those citations as far as I'm aware. At the moment I can't find the German monograph on anthroposophical medicine which started its treatment in the 1880s. My guess is that they may have been looking at the theosophy etc. The conventional dating, at any rate, is to the post WWI period so I wouldn't worry about - my previous statement was just trying to make sense of Jutte's claim. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for that. I have seen nothing about it in Steiner's autobiog. or anything else by or about him. It seems unlikely, given what he was doing and publishing in 1880's/90's.
 * In a way, this mention of "pharmacy" (I've just come across it) confirms that Steiner was not initially occupied with the study of medicine: "1892 January: Today only thing left to say is, that my book (The Philosophy of Freedom) makes good progress. The disposition and the arrangement of the content are now determined. Besides his work in the (Goethe) archive (Weimar), Steiner is also engaged as a writer. He often writes essays and reviews. Not seldom he criticises in his articles the preaching of moral that is done without any basis of knowledge. Because of this he made himself a number of enemies, but was supported by Ernst Haeckel. His moral views (ethical individualism) may be characterised by the following quotation: A general prescription from the big pharmacy of moral remedies can only be rejected by all those, who really work towards a better future. --Qexigator (talk) 07:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, I haven't read the relevant literature but I'd imagine you're too fixated on Steiner's biography - it's unlikely that he came up with anything ex nihilo and there are likely to be cultural and social roots/precedents/influences on the development of anthroposophical medicine that are not simply extensions of Steiner's biography and that extend back into the 19th century (theosophy being one). FiachraByrne (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not fixated, just thought you might be interested given the wide scope of references your editing looks at. Surely it's unlikely anyone comes up with anything ex nihilo, and there can hardly be any cultural or academic developments of 20c. which are not traceable to 19c., and 19c. to previous centuries. But if this particular individual is not of interest, then no more need be said. Qexigator (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good points. Grouchy today - sorry. FiachraByrne (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

...blocked for a period? If you are willing/able to comment about Criticism section at Talk:Alternative medicine you'd be welcome. Qexigator (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's an existential block. Frankly, I've been avoiding it ... I often leap in at such articles to little ultimate effect. I'll have a look later and see if I have any useful comments to make. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Qexigator (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see follow up reply about Z. at my Talk. Qexigator (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment
A fellow Wikipedian mentioned that you might be interested in commenting here [. 2 editors believe WP:COMMONNAME applies however there is disagreement.  Any advice? [[User:DVMt|DVMt]] (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for commenting. That was amazing, far more detailed than I could have imagined.  Would your keen eye be interested also in Doctor of Chiropractic or perhaps Schools of Chiropractic?  There is a dispute right now at SoC that could use an additional opinion (see TALK).  DVMt (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm done with this for the next while. Please inform me if you or Greg Bard initiates a requested move process for the Philosophy of chiropractic article. As an aside, I'd advise moderating the accusations against other editors - even if you feel it is justified. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. After a long process of going in circles it's hard not for the limbic system to take over. Thanks again.  DVMt (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There are legitimate concerns that the manner in which you've created sub-articles for chiropractic – Philosophy of chiropractic and Schools of Chiropractic (are there others?) – has been to wash those topics of any sustained criticism. You may feel that the existing articles were unnecessarily or overly critical or that they did not uphold WP:MEDRS, but the manner in which these articles were created may raise concerns that you were trying to circumvent the observation and input of other editors. FiachraByrne (talk) 09:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Manual and manipulative therapy
Hi Fiachra. You've made quite the impression on me with you well-reasoned, objective look at subjects I'm editing in. Those pale in comparison, however, to getting a scientific consensus on MMT. Here is the proposed text. The reflist is a talk page of chiropractic. Prior to going for an RfC I'd like to hear what changes, if any, you'd like see made.

Manual and conservative therapies commonly used by chiropractors may be effective for the treatment of low back pain  as well as lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy,  neck pain, some forms of headache,  and some extremity joint conditions. In general, spinal manipulation is equivalent to other conservative measures for musculoskeletal complaints.. There is insufficient evidence regarding the effectiveness of spinal manipulation on non-musculoskeletal conditions. . The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of maintenance chiropractic care are unknown. There is considerable debate regarding the safety of the core clinical act of chiropractors,pinal manipulation, particularly with the upper cervical spine. Although serious injuries and fatal consequences can occur and may be under-reported, these are generally considered to be rare as spinal manipulation is relatively safe when employed skillfully and appropriately. Regards, DVMt (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no real competence on these questions of efficacy etc, but could you fill in the details for footnotes 14 & 16? FiachraByrne (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm at work but I'll get those refs in there. I'm more interested in if you find any problems with the sources (i.e. primary studies).  I feel that the primary dissenting editor is giving the proposed text a short shrift which is a major concern given the importance of the matter.  DVMt (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. Evaluating the sources properly requires a knowledge of the current medical literature which I don't have. However, I think it is probable, and reasonable, that there will be objections to the inclusion of publications such as Chiropractic & Osteopathy based on their impact factor and track record, relative to other journals, in publishing studies on the efficacy of medical treatments.FiachraByrne (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think as a reader I'd like to be informed about the level evidence for these conclusions; most of the studies seem to indicate that the findings are not so robust (moderate to low). FiachraByrne (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Should you include these studies?
 * FiachraByrne (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think where you have a finding on the efficacy for a treatment from the Cochrane Review you should probably exclude other sources. Their findings are unlikely to be as robust. FiachraByrne (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Per the Rubinstein studies, you should probably distinguish between the findings for chronic and acute lower back pain.FiachraByrne (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think where you have a finding on the efficacy for a treatment from the Cochrane Review you should probably exclude other sources. Their findings are unlikely to be as robust. FiachraByrne (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Per the Rubinstein studies, you should probably distinguish between the findings for chronic and acute lower back pain.FiachraByrne (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The above is Rubinstein's update of the Cochrane Review for chronic lower back pain. I've no idea why they haven't been published in the Cochrane Database Review, what it indicates that they haven't been, and the findings of which study should be given priority in a wikipedia article. FiachraByrne (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, there's work to be done on my end for this now. You raise excellent points regarding the Cochrane reviews.  Rubenstein is a chiropractor so the reviews aren't biased.  The other point I'd like to discuss is the review from Chiro and Osteo (Bronfort et al).  Whereas as the majority of the studies we're examine have to do specifically with spinal manipulation, the Bronfort review was more broad and look at 'manual therapy' which covers soft tissue therapies, stretching, mobilization, etc...  So given that it refers to manual therapy I think it should be included despite the fact it's not in a higher impact journal.  That being said, I'll do a search for a Cochrane review or another review on manual therapy for MSK conditions.  I'm going to have dinner and then do some work on this and post a revised update tonight and see how it goes.  Thanks again for you help and suggestions, they're very useful and helping me be more discerning.  DVMt (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Update 1: This [Evid Based Med 2012;17:81-82 doi:10.1136/ebm.2011.100212] could be used, its a review of Rubenstein et al. 2011 CLBP review. DVMt (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Update 2: The decision to refer patients for SMT should be based upon costs, preferences of the patients and providers, and relative safety of SMT compared to other treatment options. SMT is effective for chronic LBP, but limited evidence suggests that it may not be effective for acute low back pain.   [ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=22028377]   Combining spinal manipulative therapy with other interventions (multi-modal)  are more beneficial than unimodal therapeutic approaches.     In terms of pain and functional improvement for those with chronic LBP, clinical benefits should be evident within 8 weeks of care. .  There is evidence supporting the cost-effectiveness of the guideline-endorsed treatments of interdisciplinary rehabilitation, exercise, acupuncture, spinal manipulation and cognitive-behavioural therapy for sub-acute or chronic LBP.   Studies of nonoperative treatments demonstrated greater value for graded activity over physical therapy and pain management; spinal manipulation over exercise; behavioral therapy and physiotherapy over advice; and acupuncture and exercise over usual general practitioner care. . Manual and manipulative therapy may be effective for  lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy,  neck pain, some forms of headache,  and some extremity joint conditions.  I
 * Re update 2. I'm not sure the first sentence is appropriate. It reads like guidance/instruction and is unencyclopedic in its current form, particularly as it contains an apparent directive ("The decision ... should"). Perhaps consider rephrasing or restricting the text entirely to issues of efficacy. I wouldn't normally use acronyms; that's fine for the medical literature but here it makes the text opaque.
 * I think, as an uninformed reader, I'd like more specifics about what is meant by "effective" in a given context. Maybe: "Spinal manipulation therapy provides a limited, short term benefit for the treatment of chronic lower back pain"; or, "Spinal manipulation therapy is minimally effective for chronic lower back pain"; or, "Spinal manipulation therapy is marginally more effective than other therapies for chronic lower back pain"? Either way, I think more needs to be said than it is effective/ineffective; but a medically literate editor might provide better advice on how to translate such findings into a readable form suitable for an encyclopedia. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

paper
I am unable to get access to "Suicide in Early Modern and Modern Europe". Would you have a copy you could email me? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi James. I sent you an email via wikipedia (2 by mistake actually), once you reply I'll send the paper. If you post here when you reply by email I'll be able to send you the paper more promptly. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of medicine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samuel Tuke (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) 11:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!
Thanks, but I just threw that stuff up when I saw it had been PRODed. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Easy Peasy
Fiachra,

How do I get the bot at my talk page going? I added it about 2-3 weeks ago and it hasn't archived my talk page (stuff from 2011 even!). Any quick tips? Thanks! DVMt (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. You've only added a template notice to your talk page that it is archived by Miszabot; you've haven't actually set-up automatic archiving. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I copy and pasted my miszabot and archive box settings, with necessary adjustments, onto your talk page. I think it should work ok. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you wish to adjust setting, see here. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought something was missing. Thanks for doing this, appreciate the help.  DVMt (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Works great! Another question, I want to get a 2nd sandox article going but I don't know how to create it without deleting my current sandbox.  Tips? DVMt (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Click the following redlink and create page User:DVMt/Sandbox 2. Post link to page on your user page. FiachraByrne (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, mostly there. I filled the 2nd sandbox up.  I tried to cut and paste User:DVMt/Sandbox 2 to my current sandbox but it didn't work.  DVMt (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No idea. Just delete all the chiropractic stuff in your current sandbox and cut and paste the spinal manipulation content into it. FiachraByrne (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I added a quick link to sandbox 2 in my current sandbox. Thanks for you help! DVMt (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

WAID
User:WhatamIdoing Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, good choice. FiachraByrne (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The article needs to be split
Hi. Could you split the article the Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union by turning its section Struggle against abuse into the new article Struggle against political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union? You can copy the complete list of sources from the former article to the latter one and then remove the unused sources from the list by using the script for harvard references. The former article I think needs to be split according to the template added to its lede. --Psychiatrick (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. The new article, Struggle against political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union, is 47kb (7539) words. It can't get much longer. I put in a background section, copied from the parent article, but this should really be rewritten. I fixed some, but not all, of the references (and deleted one from the bibliography accidentally). The old/parent article, Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union is 77 kB (12002 words). The max is normally 10,000 so you might want to think about whether it's possible or desirable to do another split. The refs in this article, of course, also need to be fixed. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, the section Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union is now empty. It should summarize the new article but has to be kept really short (2-3 paragraphs max). FiachraByrne (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I’m going to fix references and add one or two phrases to the empty section “Struggle against abuse” in the parent article. Psychiatrick (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) FiachraByrne (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I don't want to kiss you as above, but share the same spirit. I proposed a Complementary/alternative medicine title but the radical skeptics didn't want the word "Complementary" in there.  Either way, this is how moves should be done.  We shall see where the chips fall, but the case for the move to include the word 'complementary' is convincing as any, per the literature, of course.  Regards, DVMt (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I guess I got carried away. Plus, I'm a gurl so maybe it would be OK...? :-) Gandydancer (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both. Personally, while I think the move is logical is doesn't bother me so much either way. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!
Thank you FiachraByrne (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The moment you've been waiting for...
The research status of manual and manipulative therapy! I know you got tons of things going on right now, but when you want a break take a peek here where the biggest example of an alt-med intervention, like acupuncture, that is crossing into the mainstream. DVMt (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Um OK. I've no personal investment in whether any or none of these things go mainstream - my main interest in these practices is, I guess, in how "consumers"/"patients" use them and how they help to define the medical mainstream. It's interesting in so far as the definition of medicine & medical practice is being somewhat transformed. If you're asking me to comment on it, while I'm sure no one else will care (and it is "sourced") I'm very dubious of the claim that Hippocrates used "manipulative techniques" in a way that is relevant to any degree to the evolution of chiropractic. It looks like what a medical historian would call an "internalist" history (medical historians hate doctors and practitioners general if they deign to write history - turf war) and the creation of impressive pedigree. Most medical historians, I'm sure, would only talk about the origination of chiropractic in the 19th century and would probably link it mesmerist techniques, healing hands and all that. Other than that, which I guarantee no-one will give a shit about, the first paragraph looks ok. I'd avoid the use of acronyms as much as possible; if you must use them, make sure to define them on their first usage (LVLA is not so defined).
 * " The use of m Manual and manipulative therapies is are a commonly used intervention used by manual medicine practitioners in the treatment of neuromusculoskeletal disorders." You use to many "use". Eliminate some.
 * "Spinal manipulation, in particular is widely seen as a reasonable treatment option for biomechanical disorders of the spine, such as neck pain and low back pain" Put a full stop at the end of the sentence. I haven't looked at the source but you know many editors will resist this statement.
 * "Manual therapies, including spinal manipulation, commonly used by chiropractors and other manual medicine practitioners may be effective for the treatment of spinal pain, including low back pain, neck pain, some forms of headache and a number of extremity joint conditions such as shoulder and hip pain." Unsourced? That's asking for trouble surely.
 * "Acute low back pain. It is not known if chiropractic care improves clinical outcomes in those with lower back pain more or less than other treatments.[32] A 2012 Cochrane review found that spinal manipulation was no more effective than standard medical care, sham manipulation, physiotherapy or exercises therapy or inert intenventions. [33] A 2010 systematic review found that most studies suggest SM achieves equal or superior improvement in pain and function when compared with other commonly used interventions for short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up.[34] In 2007 the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society jointly recommended that spinal manipulation be considered for people who do not improve with self care options" Define SM upon first use (or don't use it). 2nd sentence seems good. Ok - I can't keep reading as I gotta go. Maybe I'll have another look later but you really need someone familiar with the literature. FiachraByrne (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I noticed the conversation you're having with Brangifer re: chiro.  One of the biggest controversies in chiropractic is the role of spinal manipulation in overall health.  Traditional chiropractic theory/philo espoused a "one cause, one cure" view" which, at the time (1895) was in proper context.  But, as the profession has evolved, matured and moved towards/into the mainstream, they dropped the spinal dysfunction= sole cause of disease bit.  References here:   This monocausal view of disease has been abandoned by the profession preferring a holistic view of subluxation that is viewed as theoretical construct in a"web of causation" along with other determinants of health.


 * Thanks; I'll read the cites when I get a chance. FiachraByrne (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I found this source here that might be useful at the alt-med page.  Shows the professionalization/transitioning from CAM to COM.  Also found this video  which actually shows the chiropractic department at the School of Medicine in Zurich.  I bring it up because I see you're taking a very broad and in depth look at the Hx and contemporary status of alt-med and as Brangifer suggests, Chiropractic is the biggest CAM profession out there.  I personally use manipulative techniques in my veterinary practice, but I find the evolution of chiropractors a fascinating topic because of it's uniqueness in that it's at the cross roads of CAM and COM.  Also, I took a peek at your sandbox and it looks very well done (as usual).  Regards, DVMt (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words. I'll look at this when I get a chance (think I came across this paper before). Trying to get the terminology/definition section finished before someone removes the "under construction" tag. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * So far so good with the edit. I think it's a big improvement and given that no one has reverted it testifies to that as well.  10k edit.  Pretty crazy!  Anywho, I came across this  today when another editor asked for proof that Hippocrates was involved with spinal manipulation.  Maybe other parts of the document might be of interest for your work at (C)AM.  Regards, 01:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * One day is no measure of the likelihood of an edit sticking. As regards the historical treatment, I guess you have your sources to argue for its inclusion but personally and frankly I'd regard it as bullshit. The statement that Hippocrates in his treatise on fractures explained "how to differentiate between luxations and subluxations" I find a particularly egregious anachronism. It's not unique to chiropractic but it's clearly a selective reading of the historical record with instrumental intent. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good thing I'm not using it as bullshit. The point was that Hippocrates wrote about and used spinal manipulation.  Also note, the author is not a chiropractor.  The thing about luxations and subluxations is that that particular piece of terminology was originally used by MDs, then rejected it and spinal manipulation then osteopathy and chiropractic scooped it up and used the term subluxation to describes mild spinal joint movement disorders when the MDs used the same term to describe a partial dislocation (i.e. structural damage to the joint).  I was very confused by all this a short while ago.  Once your done with the terms at alt-med you might be able to help with the terminology at the chiro page.  DVMt (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I'm envisaging an upcoming extended break from all things alt med (barring perhaps the history of alt med article). FiachraByrne (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well deserved. See you on the Dark Side of the Moon.  DVMt (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I love to see your 'spin' on the issue and given it has contextual relevance to alt-med I'm glad took a look. The Hippocrates thing was basically to show that SMT is around for a long, long time (not just in the 19th century as some people insist) I was going for more of a general history of manipulation.  Then bring to osteo/chiro 19th century, boom.  I will decrease the use of the word use.  Given the majority of national guidelines on low back pain encourage a trial of spinal manipulation, the statement which implies 'reasonable option' can easily be back up by the reviews.  Regarding piercing through the sources, don't worry about that, I got some MDs coming to look at the sources too.  Good work at alt-med btw.  It's really fun to read the integrated version your assembling (no pun intended).  Cheers, DVMt (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Sock
Hey, I don't appreciate the accusation nor the posting at the alt-med page. What's up with that? I asked my wife to join WP a month ago to help me out with copy-editing. Regards, DVMt (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:MEAT FiachraByrne (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't refer my wife as meat ;)   I put out a notice yesterday on Facebook telling them about the situation at WP and CAM in general.  More eyes can't hurt.  DVMt (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't post on my talk page again. Thank you. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)
The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration. Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
 * Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
 * If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Welcome back (hopefully)!
Welcome back! You've been missed... 14:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Zad68, that's very sweet - although I'm just lightly dabbling for the moment. Good to see that you've working so hard to keep the circumcision article "intact". Congratulations/commiserations on your election to adminship! FiachraByrne (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Ha! And thanks!  Yes I've been doing what needs to be done in that topic area, forever and ever amen... In fact a few times I had chance to make reference to some of the really good work you had done some months ago surveying the sourcing with Publish or Perish.  Questions regarding WP:DUEWEIGHT are often raised regarding proposals there (if any sourcing is provided at all!).  There are a few proposals on the Talk page right now and your input is always more than welcome there. Anyway, glad to see you are well and that you're sticking your thumb back in.   13:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. Since you're here, :) I'd appreciate your thoughts on this - you, too Zad - if it interests either of you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Anthony. I'll try and post a comment tomorrow if I have time. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pointer Tony, I hope to get into commenting on that if I can make the time.  13:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Clarification
I didn't really mean for you to "fuck off", and hopefully you know I was being sarcastic. Cheers :) Doc   talk  12:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's ok - you made it pretty clear it was a parody. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

History of psychiatric institutions
I am editing this for a grade and I have not finished it. Thanks though — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgstoves (talk • contribs) 18:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If you want help or sources, I have a PhD in the general subject area (history of psychiatry). If you're doing this for a grade, don't plagiarise (I wrote the section you copied and pasted into the article). What course and institution are you enrolled in? FiachraByrne (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your professional closure of the discussion on Talk:Jews/infobox. Debresser (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome . had good source-based arguments for his proposals. He just failed to establish a consensus for the inclusion of that item in the infobox. Best. FiachraByrne (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I modified some of your cite formatting
I modified the way you were doing footnotes at Gun control.

I changed the inline ref from this...

to this...

And the citation from this...

to this...

They are functionally equivalent, but I'll be happy to put it back if you don't care for it. Thanks. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No, that's an improvement. The only reason I didn't cite the chapter authors and yearbook editors is I couldn't find any reference to them and just relied on the WorldCat info. I guess, though, if we're citing chapters for this source there's less need for pagination and we could instead use a predefined reflist which might be a little cleaner? Mmm, I'm sure there's a reason that I use harvnb instead of sfn in the refn template but it quite escapes me now. I like referencing too much ... FiachraByrne (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you liked it (I found the author and editor information for the small arms surveys in the introduction pdf of the respective yearbook).
 * What do you think about using instead of ? E.g.,

{{markup| Some information.{{sfn|Smith|2009|p=1}} More information.{{efn|A clarification.{{sfn|Smith|2009|p=2}}}}

Mail
Remember you were gonna send me that Moniz/lobotomy paper? I send you an email about that a while back -- check your inbox. EEng (talk) 11:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry - I have a near pathological avoidance of email. I'll check now. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You received? FiachraByrne (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Editing plans
Hello, you indicated a desire to edit a section before it is moved. Any schedule for that? I would like to move it soon, because it's absence may be exacerbating tensions. Also, if arguments on one side of the issue are uniform around the world, but arguments on the other side vary from country to country, then it would seem problematic to exclude the latter.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi . I'm afraid that I don't have a schedule and, to be honest, just keeping up with the reams of text on the talk page at the moment is taking up a lot of the time I have free for WP. I also don't share your perspective that the failure to move this text is exacerbating tensions. Rather, while the current dispute continues, editors are unlikely to give other additions the scrutiny that they require and may regard the proposal with suspicion whether warranted or not.
 * Before we move we probably need a definitive answer on the current issue. I'd suggest a well-crafted, neutral RFC that all major participants can sign up to and which would be formally closed. We'd also need all current contributors to agree to abide by the results of a formal close for some stipulated period of time (6 months to a year, minimally).
 * Nevertheless, give me a few days to go through the proposed material and I'll post on the article talk-page how I think we might integrate, what studies, if any should be added, etc. FiachraByrne (talk) 10:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Two quick things. First, it seemed there was remarkable unanimity to move the material, except for your request to delay.  Second, the reason I think moving the material would ease tensions is because that section is the obvious place to summarize major arguments for and against gun control, including the belief that stricter gun control might remove a check against possible conquest or usurpation of the Nazi variety.  Such material does not belong in the "history" section, where it is currently provoking an ongoing editorial war.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think your reading of consensus and mine, in this instance at least, are significantly different. There's neither consensus for the proposed content addition nor consensus on that talk page for the Nazi gun control content in any form. Can I ask you why that content (Halbrook etc) is not currently in the article Gun politics in the United States - it would seem more relevant to that topic. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say there was consensus to do anything but move the material from one article to the other (assuming you approve), and that material does not presently include anything about WWII that I noticed. Regarding inclusion of WWII in the sub-article you mention, that might be useful at some point, I don't know.  It's one of several arguments against stricter gun control, it has many international aspects (Germany, US, Australia, etc), and so it seems suitable for the section that I'd like to move.  I am reluctant to do much article editing on this Nazi subject, other than to insist on consensus for changes---and merely doing that seems enough for certain factions at Wikipedia to ban me from the project for life.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is you tied the two issues to each other yourself in that section of the talk page. In any case, there is (or was at least - I haven't checked since my last post) for the movement of that material at the moment. In a week or so the move will hopefully be less contentious. Don't have much time for this today but, if it's any consolation, I'm not interested in getting anyone banned. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that last bit. Regarding the two issues of (1) moving the arguments section from one article to the other, and (2) subsequently editing it to include more arguments such as WWII, I suppose it was too much to hope that all editors would distinguish between the two.  Anyway, I have removed gun control from my Watchlist.  It's kind of ironic, given that I'm now sitting in one of the best libraries in Connecticut, where I could have looked for some great resources on the subject in contention.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That's your decision and it may be wise one - my guess is that this article will eventually go arbcom and fall under discretionary sanctions. Could you answer one question for me though? Why is there no move to include this material in the article Gun politics in the United States? I mean if it doesn't belong there why would it belong in an article on gun control in an international context? FiachraByrne (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I can only speak for myself, as I am not in communication with other editors online or offline. First, there is an ongoing discussion about what "the material" should be; I felt that mere historical facts would not be as appropriate as a brief explanation of what most reliable sources say about those facts---until that's worked out, it seems premature to put the text into another article or sub article.  Second, I tried to stick to editing the talk page regarding that material, except to insist upon consensus for changes, because I felt that going further than that by inserting new content about Nazis would only lead to trouble for me.  Third, the material has many international aspects (Germany, US, Australia, etc), and so it seems perfectly ok for a section about "Arguments" in the main gun control article; as I mentioned elsewhere, if pro-gun-control arguments are worldwide, but anti-gun-control arguments vary from country to country, then summarizing only the former (in the gun control article) would lead to severe skewing and a huge POV problem.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it's complicated and its presentation, if any (i.e. is it fringe or not), depends on whether its presented as straight-history or as argument about gun control and its effects (or association, if you like, with authoritarian regimes). Personally, I think its present inclusion in the article is the worst possible one because the theory is in effect there - or at least the association with Nazism - without any examination. To correct it by adding more factual information (the rest of the history of gun regulation in Germany) is a recipe for breaking the article as there would then be no rationale to exclude any historical material whatsoever about gun control elsewhere. So we could conceivably have multiple national historical sections on gun control from Chad to Colombia; whereas I'm convinced that the sections should largely be thematic and comparative where gun control issues in certain countries would be used illustratively. As history, by the way, I think there's no doubt that this stuff is fringe - very fringe. Arguing that it's a significant argument for gun control rather than a significant historical interpretation probably has more purchase and even if fringe its inclusion may be merited in an article on WP (with proper contextualisation) although not necessarily this one. I have looked a bit for instances of this argument being used elsewhere and I don't think, with regard to due weight, that I'd be able to insist that it has much international significance. In my view, its most salient and most ripe for inclusion, if anywhere, in an article on the US gun control debate (hence my question - although I quite sympathise with the dilemma you outline above). The last point you mention touches on neutral point of view. I'm not sure that anti-gun control arguments vary that much from country to country (self-defence seems pretty ubiquitous; also that responsible owners should be allowed to use for sport, etc) it's just that America is an outlier in many ways including the intensity of the debate and the political organisation of the gun rights lobby. So far as I can determine this argument is not particularly relevant - or coherent - outside of America and its also a pretty extreme argument that is pretty fringe so I think it needs a strong claim for inclusion. By the way, most, but not all, of the data on gun regulation and violence etc seems pretty equivocal. FiachraByrne (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This will be my last comment here, because what I say does not seem to be getting through. I am not suggesting to add "more factual information (the rest of the history of gun regulation in Germany)".  I am suggesting to get this the hell out of the "studies" section where it does not belong, and putting it in a separate "Arguments" section where it does belong.  But multiple editors find it to their advantage to prevent the article from having an "Arguments" section, apparently so that the egregious placement of this information in a "studies" section can be leveraged to forever bar anything anywhere in the article about this current modern argument against gun control (which is being made internationally and prominently by the international gun lobby).  It is wrong to present this information as history, instead of as a modern argument, but it's better to present it as history than to completely whitewash the article. I hope that makes my opinion clear enough.  Goodbye.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Right - your opinions are very clear and always have been. I think, however, you're misreading me to some extent - but no matter. On the other hand, I'd have to concede that I wouldn't consider the removal of this material as "whitewashing" the article. As an argument, while perhaps of some moment in US domestic politics, I've yet to see any evidence that it is relevant in an international context and it is very fringe in any case. I'm also of the opinion that it would be infinitely better to exclude it from the article than to include it in the history section (although I see now that it has been moved to the "studies" section) where it is wholly and nauseatingly inappropriate. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to dispute the clear and obvious international scope and context, then you can do so here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure and we discussed those instances previously (and the UK one). There's no dispute, then, that the Hitlerian trope has found expression internationally. What I do dispute is that such expressions have been of any substantial significance on those national debates (aside from Australia which I've yet had any opportunity to look into and decide upon). You'll also appreciate that the use of the Hitlerian trope is presented much differently - and more concisely (even though it is vastly more relevant to the US debate) - in that article than in the current incarnation of Gun control. It might be the case that if it was presented in that way it would be a far less contentious addition to gun control (but who can say given opinion at the moment). FiachraByrne (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * These quotes are unequivocal and very general: "Internationally, the gun lobby is fond of comparing gun control agenda with that of Hitler in pre-World War II Germany". "[T]he individual items of NRA-sponsored [Hitler] propaganda collectively worked to further the cause of pro-gun activists both abroad and at home." In addition to these general statements, the sources give specific instances of the anti-tyranny argument in several countries on several continents.  There is no plausible reason to exclude the anti-tyranny argument from the main article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The first quote is not in dispute (not sure about extent of such campaigns and I'd be interested in looking at funding, etc; the NRA themselves could be relevant - dependent on sources). Consider your second quote (which doesn't just refer to Hitlerian propaganda) and the author's own conclusions: "Yet I have strong doubts that the vast majority of Brazilians would have been able to make sense of the discursive appropriation of either Hitler or Mandela." And then look at his own assessment of the influence of the Brazilian pro-gun lobby which reflected local concerns. Also, you acknowledge that the presentation of the issue in WP article you linked to is significantly different and far more concise than that which is in the current Gun control article? FiachraByrne (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I should say that I think you're doing exactly the right thing in editing that article first (didn't realise they were your edits initially) and the content, as it stands, is vastly superior to the presentation of these arguments in the current version of the Gun control article. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. I see more clearly where you're coming from. one sec. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the kind of content you'd like to add is possible in the present context. I don't think it would be best placed in an arguments section either. We'd be more looking at influence of US lobby/NRA in national referendums and debates, I think, and not necessarily going into the specifics of the arguments in detail so, hopefully, fringe wouldn't feature. Let me look around at other sources for a bit. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * - My current thoughts on this. Workable from your perspective? FiachraByrne (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess it's workable, hard to say for sure without specific draft language. From my view, the main thing is to describe that hunting, sports, and self-defense are not the only major reasons for resisting gun confiscation.  The anti-tyranny rationale is also widespread.  Incidentally, here's some related stuff about Zaire.("resisting the state's pretensions of control").Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well it would have to be properly researched before we could fix on text. However, I doubt the proposal will gain much traction on the Talk:Gun control page. We'll see. In regard to the anti-tyranny rationale - well, I would make a distinction between a specific rhetoric emanating from pro gun rights advocates in the US and particular circumstances in other regions. Security issues would seem to be a more important determinant for most populations. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, both populations and dictators like to be secure. The latter notion seems to be forbidden by the thought police at Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Right. You have a specific grievance? FiachraByrne (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * None that I haven't already explained. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI &mdash; goethean 20:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought I'd already checked that. I'm assuming this stuff can be sourced, however. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Gun politics in the United States
Here is a link to the pertinent section. This section was previously in a sub-article, but the two articles have now been merged, and I recently revamped this section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'll comment on the article sub-page when I get a chance. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good. I think you'll find that that section of the sub-page is given a very brief, high-level, accurate, appropriate, and non-forky summary by the pertinent paragraph of the Gun control article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Gun control arbitration case notice
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 19, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Bbb23 (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Amazing job with the Sexism sources on the talk page

EvergreenFir (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC) 
 * Thank you. FiachraByrne (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Please add new rebuttals to the end of the material I posted
Adding it inside of what I wrote is making this very messy and indecipherable to outside observers. ScienceApe (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * edit, nevermind, zad added that in, not you. ScienceApe (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Russian Mental Health Law

 * Hi . I'll root through the database and see what, if anything, I have. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks. --Psychiatrick (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Jenkins, R., Lancashire, S., McDaid, D., Samyshkin, Y., Green, S.Watkins, J. 2007. Mental health reform in the Russian Federation: An integrated approach to achieve social inclusion and recovery. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 85(11): 858–866.


 * Jenkins, R., McDaid, D., Nikiforov, A., Potasheva, A., Watkins, J.Lancashire, S. 2010. Mental health care reforms in Europe: Rehabilitation and social inclusion of people with mental illness in Russia. Psychiatric Services, 61(3): 222–224.


 * Richard J. Bonnie, Law of the Russian Federation on Psychiatric Care and Guarantees of Citizens’Rights in its Provision, 27 J. RUSSIAN & E. EUROPEAN PSYCHIATRY 69 (1994) (reprinting text of law).


 * Michael L. Perlin, 'International Human Rights and Comparative Mental Health Law: The Role of Institutional Psychiatry and the Suppression of Political Dissent', Israel Law Review, Vol. 39, pp. 71-97, 2006 New York Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 06/07-26


 * Olga Shek, Ilkka Pietilä, Silke Graeser, Pauliina Aarva, 'Redesigning Mental Health Policy in Post-Soviet Russia

A Qualitative Analysis of Health Policy Documents (1992-2006)', International Journal of Mental Health, Volume 39, Number 4 / Winter 2010-11, pp 16 - 39, DOI:10.2753/IMH0020-7411390402


 * Not sure which if any of these I have access to. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've used one of them. Psychiatrick (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK - I've now actually looked at the article page and I've downloaded the following articles which I'll email to you if you indicate that you want them:


 * FiachraByrne (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've sent you an email through the WP system. If you email me back I'll send on these articles (post here to remind me to check my mail once you've replied. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I’ve responded by email. Psychiatrick (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Enjoy. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

New wiki-category
How does this sound: Category: Modern historians without non-honorary doctorates in history? Possible candidates for the category are Robert Caro, Ron Chernow, William Durant, Shelby Foote, William Manchester, David McCullough, William Shirer, Barbara Tuchman. The word "modern" would refer to post-Middle-Ages. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK FiachraByrne (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I withdrew the matter from BLPN, and requested a re-name to "Historians without doctoral training".Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Just because you don't like it

 * Once more with feeling. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of a discussion that may be of interest to you
There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm electing to advance no opinion until after the ArbCom. I'd also like to extend my sympathies for the difficulties you've recently encountered with a certain editor. Generally, I think you've handled the situation pretty well. FiachraByrne (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add my sincere sympathies as well. Editing Wikipedia is sometimes difficult due to the wide variety of people here, but LB has remained civil throughout, AFAIK.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I made a statement about you at Arbcom
Fiachabyrne -- I made a statement at Arbcom about an edit you made in the Gun Control talk page. I referenced your edit as an example only where I assumed that your edit that I reference was made in "good faith". Again, I used your edit only as an example - but it's only fair that I inform you of my actions here in case you take exception to my words.-Justanonymous (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Electroconvulsive therapy
I encountered you on the antipsychiatry Wikipedia article (talk). I am currently concerned about the writing of Electroconvulsive therapy. I perceive the article as being far too "Pro" ECT. I have some statistics on death rates I plan to put in the article. I expect the editor who is "Pro" will remove them. I have only limited knowledge of an edit conflict between editors, like you cant revert two or three times. If problems do occur as I expect, I hope you can help the edit of the article to a neutral tone.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Gun control arbitration proposed decision
Hello. You have participated in the Gun control arbitration case, or are named as a party to it. Accordingly, you may wish to know that the committee is now voting on its decision for this case. The decision is being voted on at the Proposed decision page. Comments on the decision can be made at the Proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [•] 11:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)