User talk:Hughgr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents


[edit] Welcome

Just to welcome you. Hope you see that people aren't the unreasonable bigots that they can sometimes seem to be at first sight. Thanks for taking it gently on the chiropractic page - most pages on WP don't arouse such feelings, but then most won't be accessed so often either. Please don't be put off from adding to the article - just go for it, adding is always less of a problem than deleting, because deleting is taking away other people's work. Adding gives something fresh to think about and the intent will generally be to help improve.Gleng 21:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

The Mediation Cabal

You are a disputant in a case listed under Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases. We invite you to be a mediator in a different case. Please read How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
~~~~

--Fasten 16:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] You deserve a break today

Hey, thanks for your help in maintaining some neutrality against all the anti-chiropractic emotion. You have brought up some very valid points. You deserve a break. Looking forward to your return.

Barrett figured out that if it is about subjects he hates, by creating another website he can appear to be the expert. I have already raised the issue that it is un-Wikipedian of Fyslee to sprinkle Barrett's links throughout WP. A bit of a conflict since he has a close personal relatioinship with him, not to mention being his (Barrett's) assistant webmaster. I wonder how many links of Barrett's Fyslee has added to WP. That would make an interesting study in itself, wouldn't it?

Enjoy your tea. Thanks Steth 18:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not a webmaster in any sense for Barrett. I don't even have any articles on any of his sites. My relationship with him is so close that he doesn't always answer my mails, and far from always agrees with me. So your idea of "close relationship" is quite unrealistic. You can email him just as easily as I can.
You keep making the charge that I "sprinkle Barrett's links throughout WP." I have added a few because they contained information that is hard to find, that was relevant to the article. (Since it is the information that's the point, I have not objected when the link was replaced by yourself with other links that pointed to the same information - even when those links contained lots of advertising for services and quack products, while you complain that Barrett's sites have a "donation" link. Mine have absolutely none!) You imply that I have done this an awful lot. I'd like to see the results of your investigation before you continue with this smear campaign. You are making charges without knowing if they are true. That's quite disingenuous. I think you'd be surprised at the results of your investigation. -- Fyslee 18:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I see that Hughgr and I are on your 'Watchlist', eh? Hmmm. As for Barrett, aren't you his Assistant Listmaster for his Healthfraud Discussion List? Don't you post many of his links on your sites? Isn't he in your 'ring'? I was merely expressing my misgivings about conflicts of interest and...look who pops up! Just trying to keep Fyslee honest.
I haven't done an 'official investigation' but perhaps it would be revealing. Alright then, save us the time...enlighten us--how many links have you added to WP that are owned by Stephen Barrett? Steth 22:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Being Assistant Listmaster consists of checking the list for excess traffic caused by off-topic discussions or trolls. It's rarely necessary for me to function in that roll, only doing so when he's out of town or too busy. As for the other things you mention, it's only natural that people with common interests would have some contact with each other. I think a few of his sites (not all of them) are in the Anti-Quackery Ring. It took me awhile to even get him to submit any at all. The ring functions like most other rings, which is simply to connect sites with common interests. Unlike many other ringmasters, I charge nothing for membership or for featuring a site. If you want to investigate how many links I've added here at Wikipedia, be my guest. You'd be surprised how few, and in fact far fewer than would be appropriate. -- Fyslee 04:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Chiropractic. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. and please remember that to state that there is no scientific evidence to support Chirporactic is both correct and representative of the scientific consensus (per WP:NPOV). But well done for deciding to try compromise wording instead, I'm sure that with a bit of ingenuity a suitable lead can be written. Just zis Guy you know? 20:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Chiropractic and Mass Marketing

Hi Hughr, I found this and am not fully comfortable with the wording. I would appreciate any suggestions/changes you might recommend. Mass Marketing Don't forget to see the Talk page. Thanks Steth 10:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hugh, you asked why we couldn't, in writing the article on chiropractic, advocate that further research be done. Check WP:NOT and if you have further questions I'd be happy to help. Mccready 06:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, doctor. I know that it must be frustrating for you to see the slow development of the Chiropractic article. Your patience is much appreciated. I do think we may have reached some consensus on the first two sentences below, but I was wondering if you might have some comments on whether the third one is accurately stated:

Actually, AED did invite you:) See below.--Dematt 23:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractic, or chiropractic care, is a complementary and alternative medicine health profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, and the effects of these disorders on the functions of the nervous system and general health[1]There is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal adjustment and other joint and soft-tissue manipulation[1]. (Chiropractors/Some chiropractors/Many chiropractors/Most chiropractors/The majority of chiropractors) believe that abnormal displacement of vertebrae, termed vertebral subluxations, can impair or alter nerve function to interfere with the body's ability to stave off disease or other pathology, and that adjustments to the spine and/or extremities can restore this ability.

Cheers! -AED 07:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I was just reading your comment on McCready's talk page. On Wikipedia we don't advocate anything. Such editorialising would be a violation of WP:NPOV and as such would be unacceptable. I hope this answers your question. Jefffire 17:47, 17 May

2006 (UTC)

I've been diverted for a while so my comment here might be outdated - if so sorry for wasting your time. I have come across a number of heavyweight recommendations that further research is needed, maybe the resolution is to quote one of these - then its not our view, we're just reporting on others views. I'll try to retrieve these, will take me a little time to get back into the flow here though.Gleng 12:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

That would work. Jefffire 13:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

As you can imagine, the shear bulk of information is awesome and I have just finished the next two paragraphs but have to get the references right before I bring it out. If I bring it out too soon, it gets chopped up before I have time to get the main idea out. Even then it may get demolished. I'm trying to keep it NPOV and just the facts without regard to bias on either side. It's coming out soon. Hang in there, then I'll need everybody's help to fine tune it and then protect it from the sharkfest (AED's well chosen words). I think everybody here has good intentions, though some misguided. Keep a level head and be sure to think for yourself. Your enthusiasm is enheartening and helps to keep me going. --Dematt 02:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Troll accusation - chiropractic talk

Dear Hugh, I have been unfailingly polite to you and helpful. Were you referring to me as a troll when I asked Levine for evidence of his claim? If so, your comment was not in the spirit of a good wikipedian and may reflect a certain frustration on your part. Please try to maintain good relations in your discussions with users who are committed to producing the world's best encyclopedia without POV. Mccready 04:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to butt in for a moment. I believe that the both of you are contributing admirably despite having opposing view points. It can be hard sometimes, but I'm glad that this article is recieving good attention. After working for so long on other pages in what can only be described as the badlands of Wikipedia it's refreshing to see people working together on this article despite occassional differences. Jefffire 11:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chirohistory input

Hughgr, I want your input for the next part of the history concerning BJ Palmer. Come to this site --Dematt 13:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Concerning your last edit... That was sooo awesome:)--Dematt 06:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I try :)--Hughgr 18:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chiro lead

Hey Hughgr, yeah, I know how you feel about the lead. But, I don't see any real problem with including asthma and migraine and anything else. I see people like these everyday and have similar results as you. Yeah, I treat them for back pain and they tell me their bladder symptoms that their MD diagnsoed years ago go away. These patients come back because of their bladders not their backs. Because the science is not there, you and I don't go yelling it across the hilltops, but when it does...

The thing I am waiting to see is if Mccready or Arthur revert. Then we'll try something else. Keep kicking!--Dematt 19:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ChiroTalk

I noticed recently that Chirotalk has started its own self-promoting article on WP. I nominated it for deletion. I thought you might want to chime in with your thoughts here. TheDoctorIsIn 22:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We 'Aims' ta please

Hughr, Just thought "whose aims are" sounded a little more educated and more professional. Steth 20:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried to get rid of the "aim" word a long time ago. Mccready put it in and kept reverting it back.--Dematt 20:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

So shall we try again? I appreciate the great job of editing that Hughgr has been doing, so maybe he wouldn't mind this minor change, which I feel adds professionalism, not to mention proper English. Maybe Mccready has calmed down about proper use of the English language, and if not, it is still, afterall, a minor change. So Hughgr, would you mind if I changed it back? Steth 23:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good reference

Your DD quote was an awesome find! Finally something that didn't make him sound ignorant:) I also like you're changes on VS. Hope they hold up:) --Dematt 12:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hughgr, did that quote come from "The Chiropractic Adjuster" or "The Science, Art and Philosophy of Chiropractic" or is it in both the magazine and the book? I may have referenced it wrong on the chiro page. If not, you can use the same source on the VS page. --Dematt 01:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VS

Excellent! This is great. You have really cleaned it up and covered all concepts. The pictures are great and they are public domain so you are fine because they were before 1923 in the US and the copyright has expired. You probably need to state your sources for the list of functional types of subluxations otherwise it looks like it is your opinion of what subluxations are and you are an editor - not a chiro:) (You are not supposed to know this stuff - you are just documenting it). Otherwise, skeptics will eat it up, so document your sources. Expect some changes from other editors, usually their POV helps you see things that you didn't think of before, so don't get upset, just keep building!!!! Don't you just love it:) --Dematt 00:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] genetics

Thanks for that link! You have no idea how much that article means to me. I have had a long fought "battle" with my father all my life as he contends that people are who they are based on their genetics and I have held steady on the environment theory. I always felt that genetics was just an excuse not to try to make a change in your life. He died two weeks ago and the night before, we were still discussing it. He had pretty much won the argument that night.. until this article. I hope he saw me reading it;)--Dematt 04:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admirable restraint

Your revert here shows admirable restraint: "OMG, I don't know what else to say...." I doubt I would have been so gentle! While I agree with some of Mccready's skeptical views, I find his lack of team spirit quite disconcerting, so I can't even defend the guy when I think he's right! He swoops in and edits extremely boldly, and doesn't even show a cooperative spirit by working together with the rest of us and discussing it on the talk page. That is very problematic. Right or wrong edit, it's still wrong to do it that way. Wikipedia should have a policy that forbids editing articles without discussing the edits on the talk page. It would save alot of edit warring and 3rr violations. The collaborative efforts of editors with opposing personal viewpoints helps to make sure that all viewpoints get represented in a NPOV way, for the benefit of readers, and the editors themselves. I find it to be an educational experience doing this, and only wish I had more time between patients to do it. (I could do without the personal attacks and lack of assuming good faith, though.....) Keep up the good work. -- Fyslee 15:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Alleged

Hi Hughgr,

I have a comment about your edit here, using this edit summary:

  • "saying "believe" is enough"

Here is the original before you removed the word "alleged," (which I will highlight here):

  • Chiropractors believe that alleged spinal joint misalignments, which they call vertebral subluxations, result in bodily dysfunction.

Here is your newer version:

  • Chiropractors believe that spinal joint misalignments, which they call vertebral subluxations, result in bodily dysfunction.

Actually it's not enough to just say "believe," because "believe" and "alleged" refer to two different subjects (in different parts of the sentence). The two subjects, which are both disputed, are:

  1. That VS (misalignments) exist
  2. That they result in bodily dysfunction

Only saying believe leaves the reader with the impression that these "misalignments" actually exist (to the degree, frequency, and severity) that is implied by chiropractors' use of the term "vertebral subluxation." We know that their existence in this manner is one of the key disagreements between chiropractic and the rest of the medical world. To ensure that this disagreement is noted, the word "alleged" (or some such qualifier) needs to be there. Without the qualifier, VS sneaks in "under the radar," as an undisputed fact. The only way to keep this lead NPOV (and possibly keep Mccready away from it) is to include the qualifier.

I suspect that Dematt recognized the crux of the matter when he reverted his edit here.

In the interest of congeniality, and to show my respect for you, I'd like to reach an agreement on this here, and then let you make a similar revert yourself (if I can convince you.....;-). -- Fyslee 08:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee, Thanks for inviting me in on this one. Yes, I have been thinking a lot about this sentence and I have concluded that the use of both the words believe and allege are not unreasonable in this sentence. However, while we do not want to mislead the reader into thinking that the VS is proven to exist, I am concerned that we denigrade it to the point that the reader determines it doesn't exist before he even gets past the science sentence.
If I were to write;
  • Johnny believes a ghost opened the door.
Do I have to write;
  • Johnny believes an alleged ghost opened the door.
Or for that matter;
  • Johnny believes God opened the door.
  • Johnny believes the alleged God opened the door.
I think, by putting both words in the sentence, it leads the reader along the writers POV which, at this point should be NPOV.
In the spirit of cooperation, however, I won't be terribly upset if you really feel you need to leave alleged in the sentence, because it is not inaccurate. I also wouldn't mind if we found an alternative word.
I also agree with you that this version is most accurate:
"Chiropractors believe that alleged spinal joint misalignments, which they call vertebral subluxations, can interfere with the body's self-regulating mechanisms via the nervous system, resulting in bodily dysfunction."
--Dematt 13:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Man do you make a good point! You are absolutely right that NPOV needs to be preserved, especially in the lead, and I don't think the lead should appear to be dogmatic. The lead should be a short summary of the important parts of the article, so some doubts can be in the lead, since the article also contains doubts. But.....just how to do that without overwhelming the reader, now that's the question!
One possibility is to simply shorten the sentence and let the appropriate article (VS) deal with it:
"Chiropractors believe that so-called (or we could say "what they call") vertebral subluxations can interfere with the body's self-regulating mechanisms via the nervous system, resulting in bodily dysfunction."
This let's "believe" apply to any and all parts of the sentence, which preserves the NPOV tone and presents accurately what most chiropractors believe to be true. It is not bombastically stating that all parts of the sentence are proven facts about anatomy and pathology, but the sentence is still stating facts about chiropractic, and that's what this whole article needs to be about.
The next problem is getting that sentence accepted! I think it will get a rough reception.
Another version:
"Chiropractors believe that vertebral subluxations exist, and that they can interfere with the body's self-regulating mechanisms via the nervous system, resulting in bodily dysfunction."
This one leaves it up to the reader to decide if they believe what chiropractors contend:
  • That VS exists
  • That VS has such consequences.
For most people, chiropractic arguments for these positions is quite convincing. Does this make any sense to you guys? Dare we invite Mccready to come here and comment? It would be preferable to having another huge edit war on the article. If we can find something he would agree to, that also satisfies us, then we'd really have accomplished something here. I suspect he might accept the second version, but the only way to find out is to invite him here. -- Fyslee 15:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's start with the first one. "Chiropractors believe that what they call vertebral subluxations can interfere with the body's self-regulating mechanisms via the nervous system, resulting in bodily dysfunction."
Then let's consider changing call. "Chiropractors believe that what they have termed vertebral subluxations can interfere with the body's self-regulating mechanisms via the nervous system and result in bodily dysfunction."
But, this may all be mute. I think Mccready has moved on to pseudoscience anyway. It might be better to stick with what is there:) --Dematt 19:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha! Good one. Well, he'll be back, so we need to take that into account.

"Termed" is perfectly fine. Sounds nice. I have thought of another possibility to solve a continual problem - using "believe" as above, and adding a "skeptic's disclaimer at the bottom of the lead. This idea isn't totally new. Here's a try:

"Some of the beliefs, claims, and practices of chiropractic are disputed, both within and outside the profession."

This sentence doesn't get into dementing every single disputed word in the lead. It leaves the details to the relevant parts of the article, where references can be provided. That has been a large part of the revert warring in the lead. Mccready keeps wanting to dement every single questionable item, right in the lead. I feel that destroys the flow of the lead, and makes for rather weird reading. Making a NPOV lead, without stating as fact the items mentioned, but stating as fact what chiropractors believe, and then tacking on the skeptic's disclaimer above, might solve the problem. I think the rest of us can live with it, so we just need to get him to accept the idea. -- Fyslee 20:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I am perfectly fine with the skeptic disclaimer as long as we don't end up with the disclaimer AND the demented sentence structure. That would be the risk. --Dematt 21:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


That is what I want to avoid and prevent. Mccready will need to agree to this, or we won't have any peace. That tortured sentence structure is bad. It may be precise, but it's not beautiful prose. -- Fyslee 22:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


This seems the most accurate, "Chiropractors believe that what they have termed vertebral subluxations can interfere with the body's self-regulating mechanisms via the nervous system and result in bodily dysfunction."
Isn't that what it was origionally?--Hughgr 21:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
hehe. The original sentence had believe and allege in it. Then we went in a big circle and ended up on your talk page:) You started it, and looks like you're finishing it:) LOL. --Dematt 22:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Misalignment" and differences between professions

As it reads, the misalignment is the "alleged" part, which, from the VS talk page, you(fyslee) admit as a PT to doing manipulations for...So the alleged part isn't the misalignment, its that the misalignment allegedly causes nerve interferrence. Am I right? Even though there is some evidence of this [1] [2], so maybe alleged isn't the right word. More like "has not been conclusivly determined", in severity, frequency, etc.--Hughgr 17:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm....I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I mean that "alleged" applies to "misalignment." Can you find a quote of mine to help me? Then I can comment on it. I may have explained myself clumsily, or not been addressing precisely this situation. -- Fyslee 15:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
After review of the ortho vs. V.S. debate, the concensus was that misalignments exist,(D.O.'s, P.T.'s, and D.C.'s "manipulate" them) but the main difference was allopaths believe nerve interferrence is a rare occurence.
On the Chiro talk page, you said, "I certainly would have no problem with an added sentence explaining that chiropractors are trained to perform specific adjustments with great accuracy, but it shouldn't be written *as if* they are the only ones who can do it specifically and accurately. That is actually becoming less true all the time, in keeping with the increased training many PTs are receiving in manipulative techniques."
And from the VS page, "Yes, I'm a PT and have been taught (and still am in continuing education....;-) both general and specific manipulation techniques."
Also, you said on Dematts talk page, "As a PT I quit manipulating the upper cervical area a few years ago..."
So you've said you do manipulations on the spine, but not the cervical spine anymore. Why were you doing manipulations if there aren't misalignments, further, why is your continuing education teaching "specific manipulations". Am I interpreting these quotes wrong? My point remains, the misalignments aren't "alleged", but the spinal misalignments causing interferrence to the nervous system is...even though alleged is incorrect as there is some evidence.--Hughgr 17:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC) [3] [4]
I think you're reading more into it than is warranted. When a chiropractor says that they "adjust" or "manipulate" (in common speech), they're usually referring to the same thing, and mean that they are literally moving - "adjusting" - a vertebra from point A to point B, that is, "correcting" a malposition, resulting in a better position. When a PT or MD speaks of manipulation (they don't usually use the word "adjust"), they usually mean a vertebra gets toggled, moving from point A to B and back to A. No real change of end position, but nevertheless can relieve pain and muscle spasm for a short time. Sometimes that's enough. This is based on the basic concept that vertebrae don't get "out of joint" under normal conditions, unless there is severe trauma or joint destruction. Even when an MD or PT speaks of misalignment (I don't ever recall hearing it), they are speaking of a rare condition, not something that exists in everyone from birth to death, and not amenable to HVLA thrust manipulation. I don't know if that clears things up, or have I just added to the confusion? -- Fyslee 18:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're getting into semantics and making the situation more confusing than it should be. The position of the vertebra may be stablized in position B, but due to Wolf's law and Davis' Law, may return to postion A. Things such as the age of the patient, and how long has the misalignment been there must be factored in. I think your being derogatory when you say something that exists in everyone from birth to death. No one says that, but I have heard "most" used.--Hughgr 21:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is only derogatory if you don't believe it. Fyslee did not make that up, there are chiros that say it. Don't take it out on him. He may be a chiroskeptic, but he is just trying to help us get this correct on the chiro page in such a way that chiro haters don't make it all worse. Consider Fyslee as your public sounding board. Sometimes the things we say sound stupid when it bounces back to us. He is just helping us realize that. I think:) --Dematt 22:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
It definitely wasn't meant to be derogatory, especially in this assembly. I respect you guys too much. (Which is more than I can say for some of my antagonists here, who use ad homs on me all the time.) It really is a very common and widely promoted claim by some high profile practice builders. It's those kinds of claims that get noticed by skeptics. We don't forget them! I'm well aware that many chiros don't believe that, but that's what is said. I really am trying to help you guys get this thing right. I believe that chiropractors themselves can make the best contributions here. We just need to avoid the extremes. Telling the chiropractic story, with all its many facets. That's what can make this article the best ever written. Most other articles are written from one side or the other. This one can get them all together. When people have read this one all the way through, they should step back and say "Wow! I think I understand what both sides are talking about. Now I need to make up my own mind about what I wish to believe." -- Fyslee 22:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I've just never heard it said that "everybody...", but like I said, I've heard "most". I've never been to a practice builder so I can't comment on that, but it sounded a little dubious to say "everybody", thats all. :) What do you think of my example of Wolf and Davis' law's. Does that clarify anything?--Hughgr 23:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
It confirms that you and Fyslee are saying exactly the same thing about some chiropractors' beliefs. --Dematt 00:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
And Fyslee. I'm not sure we are going to be able to avoid the extremes(either extreme). We might have to deal with it all head on. (pretty soon) --Dematt 00:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
To be very precise, I'm not sure I can, right now, here at work, find a statement that says "everybody" (which wasn't a quote, but my own wording), but that's the clear impression some of these practice builders convey.
As to Wolf and Davis, I'm not sure that really addresses my point, since I'm sure we can agree that joints do degenerate and deform with time. That's probably a longer discussion than I can squeeze in between my patients right now.
As far as dealing with the extremes, we will no doubt have to deal with them, since they are part of the picture. They just need to be mentioned with an example or two from verifiable and reliable sources, and given the degree of weight that they deserve.
Speaking of how much weight.....as far as subluxation goes, the following makes interesting reading (I haven't finished it yet):
The World Federation of Chiropractic has adopted an "identity statement" based on a survey in which thousands of chiropractors were asked how the public should perceive them. -- Carey PF and others. Final report of the Identity Consultation Task Force, April 30, 2005
The survey report states that 65% of respondents said that the phrase "management of vertebral subluxation and its impact on general health" fits chiropractic "perfectly" or almost perfectly. -- Consultation on Identity. Quantitative research findings. World Federation of Chiropractic, Dec 2004
-- Fyslee 13:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] chiro believers

Help defend my good edits. It takes more time than it's worth to protect other good edits otherwise. There is no reason to remove Kinsinger based on steth's or anyone else's bile. There are good reasons as you know to include Pseudoscience. Prove to me I'm not wasting my breath on you. It takes two to tango. Mccready 17:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they are good edits, they are only reverts which eliminate many other editors good input. While trying to add information is better than constantly reverting, the Kinsinger reference from the quackwatch website is the poorest of "research" I've seen yet. It amazes me that any chiropractic research which is "less than perfection" immediatly gets critized by you and other anti-chiros, yet this pile of manure is somehow perfectly fine? Thats just incredulous! Cheers --Hughgr 17:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McCready to be banned for 10 days on Pseudoscience articles

You might want to weigh in your thoughts here, if you haven't already. TheDoctorIsIn 18:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll be monitoring the situation and chime in if I can add something someone else doesn't already say.--Hughgr 20:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NBCE page

I looked over the NBCE page and it looked really good. I think you did a great job and considering you have the reference at the bottom of the page, it shouldn't need to be referenced unless someone questions it. Good Job! --Dematt 23:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering about adding something to the CCE page, too, but then I saw that the entire CCE site is copyrighted. I don't think that Dr.Rick could do anything that WP would accept, because they would go back to that site and see the copyright info. It would look professional though. We can at least be looking for some professional looking pictures or logos. --Dematt 23:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You're invited

Come on over - Dematts ChiroPractice page--Dematt 23:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Check it out again! --Dematt 20:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Take a break and enjoy that great nature up there. I'd love to live there. Are you a hunter or fisherman? I've lived in Greenland and went hunting and fishing often, shooting four reindeer in one day once, and three in one day a couple other times, including the very first day I ever hunted big game, two weeks after arriving. I even caught seven big trout the first day I tried using a fishing pole, one week after arriving. My last trout adventure was with another guy. We caught 180 trout in four hours. Other times we'd sail out and catch 40-50 cod per man, and stop because we knew we'd have to prepare the catch for the freezer, and still get some sleep before going to work the next day. That's Greenland for you. Beginner's luck is guaranteed. You're fortunate that where you live there are forests, unlike Greenland, where the trees are more like bushes, except in the southern part, where they can grow to be a gargantuan 15 feet high! BTW, would it be possible for you to email me that file at sitemaster@quackfiles.com ?Fyslee

Yea, this is a great place to live. I have a lot of fun in the outdoors, although I don't go hunting as much as I used to. The fishing is world class, and the only complaint is the rivers freeze in the winter so you can't go year round. :) Do you do much of that in Denmark? BTW, you should get all the "green" books. The DD one you asked about is really only a minute part of the story. There is so much more in the other 30-something books that you should have if you want an accurate account of the Palmers. The 22nd vol. has a long history of the event and many letters and other interesting info. Like DD's original death certificate said "typhoid due to an auto accident"! Interestingly, it was a cousin of DD's wife who wrote it. I'll ask my friend who bought the CD with all the Palmer books on it where he got it and foreward that info to you.--Hughgr 17:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't hunt anymore, and rarely go fishing. The winters here aren't usually very severe. The only "weapon" I have now is a pellet gun, a nice target pistol. I can hit a quarter at 10 yards and a large apple at 25 yards with it. The same with a .22 pistol. I never could do that back when I owned my two .357 magnums (a Ruger Blackhawk .357/9mm and a Colt Python. The Python is a fantastic weapon.). Back then I wasn't a member of a shooting club, but have since been a member for about a year, which helped my aim alot. I miss hunting. The reindeer hunt was the high point of the year for us in Greenland. It was from Aug. 1 - Sept. 25. If you ever see a red-nosed reindeer that claims to be Rudolph, don't believe him. I shot Rudolph in 1990 and we ate part of him for Christmas dinner.....;-) That's one of my more gross jokes to freak out vegetarians (I used to be a vegan). -- Fyslee 19:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Along those same lines

Did you know that Pasteur was a vitalist and died in 1895? --Dematt 18:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you know the dogs and bees can smell fear? LOL No, actually I wasn't aware of the that, thanks for sharing.--Hughgr 19:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
You're a Smart A$$ :P* Check out "psychic energy" --Dematt 01:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
HAHA, sometimes. That article is looking really good.
Thanks to Gleng! He wrote the whole thing.
I noticed that when Freud was talking about "psychic energy" in 1923 could BJ have been talking about the brain as being the energy source like you were saying? Maybe BJ was keeping current with Freud as well.
--Dematt 02:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, interesting but, from my reading of the "green books", BJ makes the comparison to electricity as an analogy numerous times. IOW, the brain is the dynamo, the nerves are wires, and what the "wires" connect to are like a globe (light bulb). A subluxation was a rheostat interferring with the electrical transmission. He also seemed to abhor the idea of a "non-conscious" mind. He would make a comparison between the "non-conscious" brain and innate intelligence, and would say, if this "non-conscious" brain can control everything in the body, wouldn't that make it a "super-consciousness". :) But because of mans egotism and all...he writes,
"But when medically educated men theorize about what makes the animal tick, it is “sub-conscious,” “non-conscious,” “un-conscious” sympathy and reflex action; something that is left to the theologians, psychiatrists, spiritualists, meta-physicians to play around with."
Also found this interesting-
"The psychologist thinks of the duality of man’s mentalities as “conscious” and “subconscious” or “unconscious”; the latter inferior and below or beneath the other. “Unconscious: Insensible; not receiving any sensory impressions and not having any subjective experiences.” (Dorland) To the conscious mind, Innate is unconscious only because it is not conscious to the conscious mind. That Innate receives “sensory impressions” and does have “subjective experiences” should be obvious, even to our conscious minds. The “conscious” mind is the one you and I voluntarily develop by process of accumulation from birth to death. We prefer to think of it as “education” we gather from books, classes, schools, experience, etc. The “subconscious” or “unconscious” is the “other fellow” of the duality of mentalities, herein referred to as Innate Intelligence, that builds and runs our entire bodies from and between conception and death; builds and runs all other natural composite organized objects from their conceptions and deaths, etc. I prefer to name this “other fellow” living in our human house the superconscious mind, because it is the superior one in quantity, quality, ability, capability, control of functions, not only in composite units but in the totality universe as well. The psychologist thinks that the inferior “conscious” mind possesses possibilities of talking to and directing the character of thoughts produced in and by the “subconscious” or “unconscious” mind. If it were possible—which I deny—for man to talk backwards and upwards to, and take flights of fancy into fields beyond his reach, to direct the quantity and quality of thinking of the superior intellect—which he would like to do—then he might as well jump the additional remaining small gap and let his sixty years of book-education talk direct to God with its millions of years of Direction of this and these worlds and all that has been or is in them. The psychologist forgets this world has been in existence, has been running satisfactorily for millions of years, in millions of people, in millions of ways, before his feeble infinitesimal college-education began in its present-day form or body; to pass out of the picture when his present-day form or body dies, which must begin all over again in his off-spring. The psychologist likes to think his education knows all; sees all; and can direct all of his “other self” that lives within; therefore he would like to think he is directing its thinking and acting. He likes to think that he possesses some secret key so he can tell it what to do, where, when, how, and why. He prefers to think of his smaller intellect being the greater. In that lie the fallacies and mistakes of a wrong approach of psychology to solve any internal problems of internal man. It is the other way round. The greater directs the lesser! The Master commands the servant!"
--Hughgr 20:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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

I have started three separate proposals to merge these three articles. The discussion for each amalgamiton of the merge begins here. I would appreciate you taking the time to give your thoughts for each proposal. Thanks. Levine2112 00:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where are YOU?

So first you come and get me, now you dissappear! There is still a lot of work to do here! Certainly there is nothing more important to do out there:) What, did you run away with my hooker and blow? --Dematt 00:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments welcomed!

Hughgr, can you help with this one? You are good with the straight POV and I think it should be accurate for their purposes. --Dematt 18:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palmer College of Chiropractic

Thank you for expanding the Palmer College of Chiropractic article. --Midnightcomm 00:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good job on the chiro lead

Hey Hughgr! Good job on the chiro lead! I like it and it is much more inclusive. I knew you were out there somewhere:) --Dematt 12:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been around, just haven't been contributing as much lately. I think its writers block :) Good to see you back as well!--Hughgr 18:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the way I was awhile back... I think it was a form of burnout. Either that or we are almost finished. Maybe we should go on over to the medical section now:) --Dematt 20:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
HAHA, I would like to start a article on medical mistakes like thalidomide, etc.. I wonder how long that would last. :) --Hughgr 22:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
If done fairly it would be welcomed, but it's not a new idea. Just start with iatrogenic for more information and links to other related articles. That could be a very long list, and the best documentation would all come from medical sources. There is a long tradition of documenting errors and side-effects.
There are two short articles that are very relevant to the subject:
-- Fyslee 21:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
You go first:) --Dematt 22:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
LOL, I'm probably on somebodys watch now just for typing it! :)--Hughgr 22:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Certainly Fyslee's! ROFL :) --Dematt 22:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I currently have 1,033 pages on my watchlist (excluding talk pages), and of course many are other users. Some are there for obvious reasons (vandals, crackpots, etc.), while others are there because I find their contributions to be interesting, helpful, collaborative, etc. You two are in the latter category....;-) Even when we disagree, we can do it agreeably and collaboratively. I wouldn't want to be allowed alone in this place! It would end up representing my POV too much (I can do that on my websites), and since when is that Wikipedia's job?! We need each other. BTW, do you guys have websites or blogs? If not, get busy! (and activate your email function here). -- Fyslee 13:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right about the web site! I'm not sure I have the time for a blog, though. Why would anybody want to hear what I had to say? I'm also afraid I'd get too much hate mail;) --Dematt 01:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Holy sheep smoke Fylsee, how do manage to keep track of 1,003 pages and still have a life! :)--Hughgr 06:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't keep track of all of them. As far as having a life, well, to me - to learn is to live, BUT I actually do have a real life besides this cyber one....;-) I have my preferences set to automatically add anything I edit to my watchlist. Every once in awhile I remove some, since they aren't all that relevant. I have a wide range of interests, but don't have the time to really cultivate them all. When I was in my early twenties I should have appeared on the 64 Thousand Dollar Question or Jeopardy. I'd be rich now.... nah, I'd probably have gotten stage fright and blown the third question! -- Fyslee 18:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barrett

I had "he deems" in that sentence but then removed it as I thought the quotes were sufficient. lol. Matters not.Jance 05:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No problemo :) --Hughgr 21:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing here that violates copyright. There are some quotes from the site, but nothing outside the realm of "Fair Use". This is just an attempt by an annoyed editor to get some material removed because he doesn't like it. --Curtis Bledsoe 21:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's let the admins decide. I also asked for other editors' input, because I thought the content added by Curtis was excessively lengthy and repetitive. It is an attempt to reproduce various websites.Jance 21:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
No, as I have REPEATEDLY stated, I am not trying to reproduce any websites. I am simply trying to convey an accurate description of the work and views of the organization through summaries of those positions with links to the organization's web site to support those summaries and to allow those who want to learn more to do so. --Curtis Bledsoe 21:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's let the material added speak for itself. I asked Curtis on the talk page what specific points he felt important to keep, and he did not want to address that. Instead, he just reverted to the massive additions (and reproductions of web pages).Jance 21:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The material *does* speak for itself - there's nothing in the article outside the real of "fair use". I don't see what's wrong with adding valid and useful information about an organization to an article that was, until now, largely concerned with the complaints of those who found themselves the targets of this watchdog group. --Curtis Bledsoe 21:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I am neither a target, nor 'anti-Barrett'. This is not fair use. This is reproducing a website (or several).Jance 22:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
HOW exactly, is it not fair use? The material in question is being quoted as a portion of a whole, it is correctly attributed, it is being quoted for non-profit, educational use and it is being quoted accurately (despite your attempts to render it inaccurate). --Curtis Bledsoe 22:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
You cannot cut and paste large portions of a website, especially one that has a copyright at the top.--Hughgr 22:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Hughgr. That was my complaint, but I did not think of it in terms of copyright. My complaint was that it was tedious, long, and repetititve. Now what is the next step?Jance 23:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Your correct as well. I'm not sure of the next step. If the copyvio material is deleted, then there won't be a copyvio anymore. Otherwise, I left a post on the copyvio page, and an admin will look into it.--Hughgr 23:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I can tell you Curtis will not delete. He is now following me to other articles. I think you should probably raise it with admins. He has reverted so many times, insisting on this inclusion, that i gave up. Jance 23:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Curtis

Did you see his latest? Alleged Copyright Violation

Unless anyone can actually provide any evidence of a copyright violation, I'm going to remove the notice. I'll give y'all 48 hours to come up with any reason why I can't quote small portions of a web site under fair use. --Curtis Bledsoe 01:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Jance 01:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite capable of making my own points, thank you. --Curtis Bledsoe 03:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NCAHF article

Thanks, Hughgr. This is a difficult situation, and I don't know what the answer is. It may take several of us to appeal for help, if consensus does not prove sufficient and the article continues to be written/reverted by one editor. It looks like we already have a 'bipartisan' group to do so -- "pro-Barrett", "neutral-barrett" and "anti-Barrett". Well, I haven't seen an anti-Barrett yet weigh in on this yet, but I can't imagine they would appreciate it either.Jance 04:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Where are those "anti-Barrett"s when you need them? ;^) --Ronz 04:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
lol, Ronz, isn't that the truth~!Jance 08:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The copyright tag needs to be readded, with the websites the material was copied from.Jance 08:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barrett v. Rosenthal

Thank you for making a positive edit to this article. This is an example of how working WITH someone instead of against them can improve articles around here. --Curtis Bledsoe 04:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barrett v. Rosenthal

I changed this. The section Curtis added was POV, and irrelevant to the issue in this case. It was not even legally correct as to the issue at bar, and it is not relevant to why this case is notable. At all.Jance 07:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats fine, I haven't even read the case. I was just trying to cleanup and NPOV what he wrote, so not a problem by me. --Hughgr 20:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I left it as it was - decided not to revert it. I did not want to get into another edit war, since Curtis has already reverted it more than once. If you look at Ronz' talk page, I explained the case. I am not going to edit for awhile. Anything I edit Curtis will promptly revert. I will discuss on talk pages, and if one of you all want to make a change, fine. Oh, and thank you so much for your kind comments on my talk page. I do appreciate it. It is nice to be appreciated, instead of attacked.  ;-) Jance 00:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weighing in under "Protection"

Would you weigh in "agree" or "disagree" under NCAHF? I don't know if you are interested in this, but we are trying to build a consensus that Curtis' long edits are not acceptable in a Wiki article, whether or not it is a copyright vio. Thanks.Jance 00:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of articles related to scientific skepticism

Care to weigh in and votehere? Levine2112 22:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another vacation?

Do you ever work? -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

HAHA Work is for sucka's! I've been around, mostly just watching. :) --Hughgr 21:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
ROFLMAO! I was picturing you with margaritas and an umbrella and a cigar:) But I bet your kinda cold right now, huh:) -- Dēmatt (chat) 21:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
A bit, been a cold winter...where's global warming when you need it. --Hughgr 21:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] please email

Hughgr

I'd like to discuss some valid concerns I have over the chiro wiki, however, I cannot seem to tak to you directly (IM, email). Please get back to me.


[edit] Removing redlinks from Chiropractic

Please do not remove redlinks "because they look like crap". Redlinks are there for a reason. If you really have to edit war about something as trivial and basic as this, you may want to refrain from doing so until you have learned more about the way Wikipedia works. Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 08:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the relevant guideline: Wikipedia:Red link. I deliberately wikilinked those organizations because there is a need for the articles, even in the form of stubs, and there is also a reasonable chance those articles will be made. Maybe you can write stubs for them. That would be a constructive way to use your time here. -- Fyslee/talk 08:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Well Fyslee, you are the one who redlinked them so your the one more obligated to start them. I don't have the desire to do so and if you don't, they may not get created for some time. Who knows, I just think it looks like crap, IMO.--Hughgr 19:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I know what you mean about the appearance! I only did it to encourage others to start some stubs. If there wasn't a chance I wouldn't have done it. They deserve articles. Chiropractic must be the best covered profession at Wikipedia by now. -- Fyslee/talk 22:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Please activate your email or email me. -- Fyslee/talk 07:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You could just tell me what you want to tell me. I don't plan on activating email. --Hughgr 22:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion at the Quackery article

I'm trying to get a discussion going over at the Quackery article about the Notable People Accused of Quackery section of the article. The section keeps getting removed so I'm trying to get a dialogue going about the usefulness of this section. Come on over and join in :-) Elhector 21:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding recent edits on Chiropractic and CAM

Hi,

I noticed you reverted Mccready's edit on those pages. Do you know this editor well? He has recently requested I use talk pages before reverting, but he reverts edits and has 0 edits on the CAM talk page. I'm a little confused by his editing style. I left him a note here.[5] Anthon01 (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunatly. You should read his talk page history for an idea. It's pretty self explanitory.--Hughgr (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I am new to wikipedia. He stated that I was found by an "wiki inquiry of POV" editing. His comments is blatantly false. There has been no inquiry. Should I just let it go or is there a procedure to follow as he as made a false assertion. Should I delete his false assertion on my talk page? I appreciate your advice. Anthon01 (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthony, your concerns about that user's editing style are legitimate. We are both skeptics but he is one whose confrontational style I definitely take exception to. (His block log.) In spite of that, his user page is informative and I basically agree with most of it. Other editors with similar types of problems are QuackGuru and the now banned User talk:KrishnaVindaloo. You're lucky you never met KV! (His block log.) The three of them share many qualities, but are still a bit different. They make skeptics ashamed to be skeptics....;-( It is definitely possible to be right in the wrong way. At Wikipedia, one's personal POV can be ever so right, but one's lack of collaborative style can exclude one from the fellowship because it is disruptive and does more harm than good. I guess that's a balance we all have to work for. The best articles are written through the collaborative and friendly efforts of editors who do hold opposing POV. They understand NPOV and recognize that the opinions represented by editors holding opposing POV must be included, and they should be enabled, not hindered, as long as their editing follows the rules here. User:Dematt is a model in that regard. A chiropractor, gentleman, and great Wikipedian who really understands NPOV and how to write for the enemy. I wish he would return full time and become an admin. Unfortunately we have pretty much lost him to Citizendium. Our loss, their gain. -- Fyslee / talk 17:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well said Fylsee, thanks. Anthon01, there are noticeboards like AN/I where you can report editor behavior. If its justified action will be taken, if unjustified you'll be informed why. Hope that helps and good luck.--Hughgr (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism

An article that you have been involved in editing, Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism. Thank you. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)