I think you may have placed a comment in different section than you intended,[1] which is easy to do. Perhaps it belongs better at the end of "MEDRS example", where we discuss a review? I have a response, but I first wanted to check with you about which thread it should go in.   Will Beback  talk  21:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right Will. Sorry about that. I'm still getting used to editing.--Kala Bethere (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section is for user Kala Bethere to work on a table of acceptable papers. Please do not edit, but feel free to leave suggestions in the section below.

If you'd like to share ideas on the above table, please add those comments here:

To answer your question on how to proceed, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Littleolive_oil_reported_by_User:Fladrif_.28Result:_.29Fladrif (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fladrif, that's very helpful to know. A keeper. :-) --Kala Bethere (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

K., thanks for compiling that list of sources. It makes the matter easier to follow and the decisions easier to settle. I agree that there are systemic problems with the articles in this topic. It looks like a further step in dispute resolution may be necessary, such as an WP:RFC/U. It best to go into these processes with clean hands. Thanks also for being patient and civil with other editors.   Will Beback  talk  14:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I'm afraid with orgs like the TM Org, it appears all of the TM-related entries are plagued by TM true believers who simply collude to create a faux-consensus, effectively blocking any edits but their own. Edit war or a collusion of quiet consensus, whatever you'd like to call it, I cannot see it being likely "outsiders" improve these articles with such interference from entrenched edit warriors.--Kala Bethere (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me, but what and who are "TM true believers"? Are they a class of Wiki editors? --BwB (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I was hoping you could tell me that. How long have you been here BwB?--Kala Bethere (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kala, the best way to deal with edit warriors is to avoid becoming one yourself. While the results may not be apparent as quickly, taking the high road is most effective in the long term.   Will Beback  talk  20:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The high road"? --BwB (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I certainly agree with that. I'd rather apply simple common sense in seeing the entries align (in this/these cases) with the applicable rules for independent sourcing. It may also be helpful to consider the ramifications and place of pseudoscience in entry creation. If an article relies strongly on pseudoscience and Vedism (Neo-vedism?), should that not be marked in the categories listed at the page bottom?

A valuable exercise may to be to slowly compile all the WP:FRINGE non-compliant entries, esp. in regards to scientific and pseudoscientific entries, and then see if you can compile a list of the the editors who put them there and see if they are still part of the active editing process on TM-related entries. If it's the same people over and over again, that could be perceived as a deliberate form of editing abuse, no?

What do you do when that happens? Is there a simple way to find original authors of Reference sources?

The upside of all of this even though the non-independent sources would have to go, even an independent review would list many, if not most of the classic TM scientific studies. Thus collaboration could help create a "best of TM research", highlighting their finest attempts, counterbalanced with independent commentaries.--Kala Bethere (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion of compiling lists of sources is good. There are so many sources, but most of them have common factors. Listings make those common factors easier to see. It's relatively easy to see who added (or deleted) material in an article. If you look at the article's editing history there's a link near the top for " Revision history search". It's pretty self-explanatory. If you're just looking for who added something then the "interpolated" setting will run much faster, but it doesn't work for deletions or additions and deletions.

You're correct that independent secondary sources will tend to include the best, or most important research, which is why we should base the articles on those.

I see you don't have email activated. I can send you some other materials via mail if you send me an email first.   Will Beback  talk  21:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you wrote "So far the search engine of WP alludes my understanding". My explanation above was probably incomplete. Is there any special problem you're having?   Will Beback  talk  01:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Emphases, mine)

"Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in basic scientific laws or reality in order to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence that would justify such major changes. Pseudoscience usually relies mainly on weak evidence, such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence at just above the level of detection, though it may have a few papers with positive results..." [2]

Pseudoscience entries, by definition are not real science, so therefore must be described according to WP guidelines:

"Pseudoscience and related fringe theories

Further information: WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE Pseudoscientific theories are claimed to be science, however, they lack scientific status by use of an inappropriate methodology or lack of objective evidence. Conversely, scientific consensus is by its very nature the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the main views. Any mention should be proportionate, representing the scientific view as the majority view and the pseudoscientific view as the minority view, including explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all part of describing differing views fairly."--Kala Bethere (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The matter, as Will said, has been discussed on at least five different threads at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. And, I'm as shocked as you that nothing whatsoever has been done to enforce the COI rules on the TM-related article. You'll see, if you peruse these, including the links to the prior discussions, that three editors have acknowledged being employees of various TM-Movement Entities. This one will provide you with most background, as well as links to earlier COIN discussions.[3]. This one is the most recent. [4] Then there is the issue of Meatpuppets/Sockpuppets, anonymous or otherwise, which is another problem altogether. [5]Fladrif (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section is for user Kala Bethere to work on a table of acceptable papers. Please do not edit, but feel free to leave suggestions in the section below.

Discuss below please

A list of current scientific papers which violate the WP:FRINGE in the entry Transcendental Meditation.

Some guidelines in removal and editing from WP: FRINGE (emphases, mine)

"Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising."

Independent sources

"While fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe, the best sources to use when determining the notability and prominence of fringe theories are independent sources. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. If independent sources only comment on the major points of a fringe theory, an article that devotes the majority of its space to minor points that independent sources do not cover in detail may be unbalanced. "

"Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance."

Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas.

"Note that fringe journals exist, some of which claim peer review. Only a very few of these actually have any meaningful peer review outside of promoters of the fringe theories, and should generally be considered unreliable.

Papers are listed by relative appearance in the entry. May not include all non-compliant citations. "Other" non-compliant magazine articles, etc. to be listed separately.

Kala your constant comments about COI constitute harassment, are uncivil, and violate WP:NPA. If you have something to say take it the COI Notice Board. Thanks (olive (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

And this statement [6] is a personal attack on multiple editors, is uncivil, and again you are harassing editors.(olive (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Olive. They're just links to past WP activities and were not intended as attacks, but information to help admins working to clean up these entries and the issues involved. Cheers.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like this violate WP:OUTING and may lead to your being blocked, please be more cautious in the future. Dreadstar ☥ 01:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was already admitted here on WP, I didn't see a problem. It's not my fault the user has mentioned it!--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is a problem. Even if an editor had previously posted the information on Wikipedia and then removed, deleted, or had it oversighted, you cannot should not refer to that previous posting of personal information. We've had several cases on this, and even if the person's personal information is in the edit history, it cannot should not be linked to or referred to. Dreadstar ☥ 19:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that is incorrect. "Per WP:Outing, outing has not occurred if an editor has previously voluntarily self-identified his or her country, language, nationality, or other personal information. Subsequent posting of that information by other users does not constitute outing. If a user has redacted that information, their wishes should be respected." Wikipedia:ARBMAC2#Final_decision It's polite to respect those wishes, but mentioning self-disclosed information is not outing and is not grounds for blocking.   Will Beback  talk  23:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, you are correct; however I think it it is more than merely polite to respect those wishes - even if it doesn't lead to being blocked. I've changed my posting above to reflect that. I still think it's a problem and don't think editors should be engaging in such behavior, especially when editors have been harassed in real life because they mistakenly posted personal information when they first started editing Wikipedia and didn't realize the potential dangers involved. There are other avenues to address potential WP:COI than repeating redacted personal information. Dreadstar ☥ 23:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say I extensively edit an article on Amalgamated Widgets. I disclose that I work in their publicity department, but after doing so I am accused of having a COI, so I redact that disclosure. Does the COI problem disappear with that deletion? No. If someone wants to avoid charges of COI then they should modify their behavior, not hide the source of their conflict. Since Olive has chosen to continue to work on articles in a topic where she has a previously disclosed a conflict of interest, that information continues to be relevant to evaluating her editing.   Will Beback  talk  00:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will. I suggest you stop making comment that discredit an editor. I did not hide my edits. I asked if I could have them Oversighted because I was experiencing off Wikipedia harassment, and you know that. Your comments here and on the COIN which attempt to make me look dishonest are troubling, and actually I thought better of you. Tossing around information that an editor has asked to have Oversighted to protect herself and her family and advising another editor this its fine to use that information is not right in anyway.(olive (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

This could all be solved if editors connected to the TM movement avoided editing articles where they have a conflict of interest, as is strongly suggested by [WP:COI]]. Failing that, they should at least make disclosures of their connections. Hiding that involvement is the wrong direction to take. Having your edits oversighted is exactly hiding your edits. I am sorry to hear that you say that you've received harassing phone calls, but I haven't heard that they were directly connected to Wikipedia. How do you know they were due to your previous self-disclosure here?   Will Beback  talk  00:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you view my personal information with such an obvious lack of respect, and since you insist on implying less than honest behaviour I really have no desire to say anything else to you. And as in the past I am and always have been a neutral editor.(olive (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I don't know anything about you that you haven't disclosed here, and no personal information has been discussed here. An incident of harassment is not an entitlement to ignore WP:COI.   Will Beback  talk  01:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask for entitlement, I asked for respect. And not wanting to reveal personal information to those editors who harass is an integral aspect of the policy WP:COI. You were asking me to explain the off- Wikipedia harassment. I told you I will not discuss anything further given the accusations you have made today. Given the environment I've dealt with in the last week, I feel no compunction to say anything to anybody. Per WP:COI: "Wikipedians must be careful not to reveal the identity of other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline on conflict of interest.(olive (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

If you stop editing TM-related articles then there's no reason your COI would come up again. If you continue to do so then it's inevitable that it will keep coming up. If you don't want to talk about the harassment then don't mention it again.   Will Beback  talk  05:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The next move is always in my hands. What COI? So let's see. Stop editing TM articles or I will continue to be harassed with COI accusations that are also attempts to induce me to reveal my personal information under the guise of, its important to find the “source” of a COI? A telling post.(olive (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The COI exists whether you reveal it or not. You voluntarily disclosed, which is the right thing to do, but now you don't want people to know about that COI any more. So yes, the answer is to avoid COI editing. You have not been editing neutrally, and having a hidden COI on articles you actively edit is incompatible with Wikipedia guidelines.   Will Beback  talk  05:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't even begin to tell me what is the right thing to do, considering what I have seen in the last week, don't tell me what I do and don't want people to know, and do not tell me I am not a neutral editor. You are ignorant of my circumstances.(olive (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I don't know what you've seen in the past week. Could you explain? As for being neutral, you keep calling yourself a neutral editor so it's a fair comment to dispute that claim. Your circumstances don't really matter, your editing does. A number of editors have given you guidance over the years, but you've rebuffed all attempts at helping and have treated dispute resolution efforts as harassment. I'm sorry that it's turned out this way, and I hope you stick around to edit articles unrelated to TM.   Will Beback  talk  06:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]