Wikipedia

Talk:Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Hawol in topic Sources
Learn more about this page

Sources edit

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments6 people in discussion

I have issues with the sources. I'll run through them quickly then comment in more detail.

So, the editors of this article probably spend a lot less time than I do reading and editing articles on supplements, complementary and alternative medicine (SCAM, now rebranded "integrative" medicine). A lot of what we're seeing here is very familiar, especially the reference to primary studies promoting improbable results that are contradicted by much larger bodies of work. Prayer, for example, has been tested many times, enough that a Cochrane review is possible.

The authors conclude that due to various limitations in the trials included in this review (such as unclear randomising procedures and the reporting of many different outcomes and illnesses) it is only possible to state that intercessory prayer is neither significantly beneficial nor harmful for those who are sick. Further studies which are better designed and reported would be necessary to draw firmer conclusions.

— Cochrane review

Now, in an article on studies on intercessory prayer we have time to go into this and discuss the lamentable quality of the research base. Peter C. Gøtzsche writes of the dangers of publishing and citing joke studies like Leibovici's. The danger, then, is WP:SYN: teasing content out of primary sources, many of which will by definition be highly unreliable because the intent it so show just how unreliable they are. Guy (Help!) 15:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Most of those "issues" you point out are not. There were some truly ridiculous tags on basic and uncontroversial facts like the journal's self-description being unacceptably sourced to the journal's page. Where else will you get where they self-describe themselves? This is acceptable WP:PRIMARY sourcing. Likewise for tagging things like indexing in Scopus as unnaccetably sourced to Scopus. Sourcing to Scopus is the BEST place (see most WP:V) to show that it is indeed indexed in Scopus. Again this is acceptable WP:PRIMARY sourcing.
I've left a few tags that applied, and removed less-relevant material. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
btw the Leibovici paper is free full text here; it is actually very darkly funny and obviously POINTY - surprisingly ("However, the significant results and the flawless design prove that an effect was achieved"... zoiks). The Leibovici paper and the Cochrane review were each mentioned this month in Smithsonian Magazine, here, where those authors note that the cochrane reviewers treated the leibovici paper seriously! It is pretty sad to me that a) cochrane published such a useless quackademic review under its name; b) the authors were that incompetent, and the "reviewers" whoever they may have been didn't pick it up either. whatever.
more generally, this article is starting to become some kind of baroque attack piece. once you start pulling on the woo-strings the unravelling never stops. Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Actually the journal's self-description is contentious because the editors' self-image is massively out of line with reality. It is also horribly bad practice to source facts in a controversial article, to the subject itself. Guy (Help!) 00:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Guy, I have stayed away for a few days as I wanted yo reply dispassionately. Your implication that you know more than everyone else so we should all defer to you is inconsistent with wiki-policies and irritating. The idea that the journal is an unreliable source for its self-description or its content is ridiculous. Presenting either as fact would be problematic and should be changed, but excluding anything from the journal is not NPOV. As for citing studies, when I mention a study I cite it so that readers can easily find it for themselves if they wish. I don't think what is published in Explore is reasonable / reliable / scientifically valid, etc, but I think providing the reference is good practice. Yes, they are primary and secondary sources are needed that evaluate them for the reference in the first place, but that does not prohibit the reference being provided at the editor's discretion. If you choose to provide such citations then that is your choice, but removing them is neither helpful nor improving content - it is just overriding others' preferences with your own. As for objecting to blogs by academics who have published in the field, re-read WP:RS/SPS. Regarding intercessory prayer, the issue was that the executive editor, publishing in that capacity, offered a pseudoscientific re-interpretation of quantum mechanics to support a ridiculous notion of retrospective prayer leading to shorter hospitalisations which had already finished, and got taken to task for it. All three editors are proponents of ridiculous ideas (provable by RS) and as Hassani noted (also a published academic on pseudoscience) it raises questions when the peer-review it claims to undertake is under their control. As for it being "horribly bad practice to source facts in a controversial articles to the subject itself," we are talking of the subject as sources of assertions about itself, which are both necessary for an NPOV article and the best possible source of their beliefs. Presenting things from them as fact would be wrong; presenting them as what they say and accompanied with RS characterisation of the real situation is appropriate editing practice. I am disappointed to see an editor of your experience misapplying policy in this way. EdChem (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's perfectly fine to cite a craptastic source in support of its self-description, but not in the voice of the encyclopedia. "Craptabulata is a peer-reviewed journal" - no. "Craptabulata describes itself as a peer-reviewed journal" - yes. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
I agree, LeadSongDog, and tried to follow that approach in editing this article. I welcome any edits that correct text which mistakenly / inappropriately used WP voice to make a statement which should be presented as the opinion of a pseudoscuentific source. EdChem (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

This article still contains blogs on the reference list. I agree with other editors (see above) who finds this to be problematic. I would encourage editors to cite major periodicals or peer-reviewed sources.--Hawol (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Criticism edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I added a section heading for Criticism because it is not clear that the bulk of the article content is critical unless one reads it in detail and I think it needs to be made plain, it's what section headings are for. But another editor deleted it on the grounds that it invites a countering "praise" section. I disagree with that - sources for criticism are far more likely to pass WP:RS than sources for praise and woo merchants will be trying to sneak in the praise anyway. What do folks think about restoring that section heading? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

MOS discourages such sections; criticism and discussion of controversies should be blended in with other content. In FRINGE articles such a section absolutely invites woo-pushers to add praise, which is a reason why we don't do this on woo articles. If this article is kept, almost the whole thing will be criticism. There is no reason to label it. Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

QuackWatch edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Anybody know why this is not on the list of Nonrecommended Periodicals of QuackWatch? --Randykitty (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

No idea, but you could always email Dr. Barrett and ask. I'd be interested too. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
I wondered about emailing about this, too - my guess is that its omission is an oversight. EdChem (talk) 02:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

DYK Nomination edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I have nominated the article for DYK. It has expanded five-fold, and with the AfD closed is now eligible for nomination. I named as expanders myself, Jytdog, Randykitty, and Headbomb. If anyone else believes they should be included, or any of the three editors I mentioned don't wish to be credited, please say something. EdChem (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

  • Thanks for listing me, but my contributions were more directed towards limiting the expansion of the article (which I think has now become a rather bloated hatchet job), so I don't think crediting me with expanding the journal is justified. And I also rather doubt that a DYK is a good idea, because the article content really is not very stable at the moment. --Randykitty (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
    I'm going to echo Randykitty here, and my role was mostly to cut down on random crap, rather than expand on it. I suspect one could argue we've curated the expansion, as done by others, but don't really see that worthy of a DYK credit. I also share some concerns about the appropriateness of this as a DYK. It's a bit of a WP:COATRACK, but it's been cut down significantly from the long-winded attack page it was a while ago. As far as I can tell, the current version does fairly reflect the status of this journal (as seen through WP:V/WP:RS), but I also feel it's a bit one-sided and missing some remarks on how quacks perceive this journal / the journal's (or editor's) response to criticism (if they have any), similar to how we cover it in Journal of Cosmology. Not sure if that's enough to prevent a DYK about the journal, or just enough to prevent a bump from C to B / B to Good or whatever. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Removed credits as requested. I think adding some reliably-sourced comments / remarks on perceptions from the advocates would be appropriate, though well-attributed as their views and not uncontested fact.

    @Headbomb: I made additions that noted refinement would be appropriate, that doesn't make my work "random crap" nor a "long-winded attack page." Please bear in mind where it started, the context of the AfD and NJournals controversy, and the views that anything the journal says is unreliable even in describing itself and when presented as its self-description rather than as an objectively factual statement. I don't think all the recent changes that have been made are improvements but I haven't fought about them nor criticised those making them, and I would appreciate being offered the same courtesy.

    @Randykitty: it will likely be at least a couple of weeks working through DYK processes, this will bring in fresh views (I hope), and lead to improvements.

    General comment / request: Surely we (collectively) can have disagreements without needing to make comments which reflect negatively on editors, even if only by implication rather than by editor-focused comments? Can we at least agree we are all pursuing quality encyclopaedic content for readers? EdChem (talk) 03:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Article about mediumship in Brazil edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This publication on Explore Investigating the Fit and Accuracy of Alleged Mediumistic Writing: A Case Study of Chico Xavier’s Letters was commented positively by brazilian media, e.g., here and here. But brazilian science journalists says that "no", and "A conclusão, a esta altura, deve ser óbvia: o artigo não só falha em estabelecer o que parte da mídia diz que estabelece – a realidade da comunicação de Chico Xavier com os mortos – como ainda é fraco demais, até mesmo, para cumprir a tarefa mais modesta que lhe foi dada pelos próprios autores: a de enfraquecer a tese científica dominante de que a mente não passa de uma função do cérebro." and no again. The last author, a brazilian parapsychologist pt:Alexander Moreira-Almeida, replies. Ixocactus (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Explore:_The_Journal_of_Science_%26_Healing&oldid=1207161920"