Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:33, 2 February 2008

Archives

/Rules archives 1 /Amusing Vandalism /Medical 1 /Miscellaneous 1 /Miscellaneous 2 /Miscellaneous 3 /Religion 1 /Religion 2 /Evolution-Creation Discussions 1 /Evolution-Creation Discussions 2 /Archives 1 /Archives 2 /Archives 3 /Archives 4 /Archives 5 /Test page

Articles on Quackademic Medicine

Below are articles articles, mostly medical but some in the sciences, that promote ideas or POV's that might endanger human life. Feel free to add your own, but I'm watching and cleaning up these articles. Please sign if you add something.

• List of medicinal herbs-lacks any references, and implies these drugs can help.Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Herbalism-same as above Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Homeopathy-ridiculous Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Attachment therapy-don't let your children go there Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC) This has been rewritten since User:AWeidman (Dr Becker-Weidman) and his 6 socks were indef banned. Fainites 16:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Medicinal plants of the American West-more unsourced POV edits Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Alternative medicine-more of the same Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Naturopathic medicine-Actually not completely off the wall, but some parts are bad. Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Er, Duesberg hypothesis and poppers could both use more work, and talk about endangering lives... especially the former. MastCell 18:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• I'd also add ephedra to the list... I did a lot of work cleaning it up and it's not so bad anymore (it actually references the serious harms and deaths associated with ephedra supplements in a way that goes beyond referring to the FDA as jackbooted thugs, now). But much of the same material is duplicated in ECA stack, which I haven't been as successful with, and which I fear gives an erroneous impression as to the safety record of ephedra-containing dietary supplements. MastCell 19:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Arguably, Reflexology, though that's probably not actually dangerous, just ridiculously oversold. Adam Cuerden 00:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Vaccine controversy. Anti-vaxers are really dangerous. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Hulda Clark. A dangerous scam. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Gary Null. Advocates nonsense. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Joseph Mercola. Advocates nonsense and repeated run ins with the FTC. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• rebirthing, reparenting, Power therapies. Primal Scream therapy. I would treat Neurolinguistic Programming as the main hub for many of them though. Its a subject that seems to be the main pseudoscientific umbrella that is used by most of them to give the false impression of scientific appearance. Its incredibly widespread and extremely misleading to the less scientifically literate. Here is a good source; . Phloem (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

anyone who wants to work on this complex of article, I'll be glad to help. Time we got to the pseudo-psychology. DGG (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• coral calcium. I just put in some references, but there is a lot more that can be done. That someone would think that coral calcium can be used as a panacea for all types of cancer when in fact excess calcium can, in some cases, be detrimental to certain cancer treatments means that we should be very careful how the claims of the coral calcium fanatics are treated. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Medical articles

Below are articles that I believe, along with any trusted science and medicine editors who may wish to contribute, meet the simple test of being well-written, do not give undue weight to fringe theories, and are either WP:GA or WP:FA:

Another one bites the dust

User: Random Replicator has gotten tired of all the attacks and has quit. And I do not blame RR, to be honest. As I have said over and over, if we have one productive editor, are they not worth more than many many unproductive disruptive trolls and POV pushers? But of course, we have to WP:AGF and behind over backwards for the disruptive trolls and POV pushers, and then we suffer the consequences.--Filll (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why Firsfron has it all wrong. Giving AGF has been nothing but a disaster for experienced editors. You know, Raymond is right. Time for all of us to quit. Then Jimbo will have a total piece of shit. Firs plays around with the Dinosaur articles, which is fine, and they are well-written. But he doesn't spend a nanosecond with the articles that test ones mind. RR is a great editor. Too bad. This sucks. The fucking nutjobs win again. OrangeMarlin 04:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Shoot, I'm sorry, OM. I'm really sorry that I offended you and opened my big mouth. I do see your point about not welcoming POV warriors, and you're absolutely positively right about my time in the trenches. You don't have to forgive me, but please do know that I'm sorry I did offend you. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been reading what people are posting to your page. I am fine that I am not civil, though I have attempted to tone it down. But you don't fight in the trenches, you stay in the articles that everyone loves to read. And save for one or two Cretinists who show up in a vain attempt to state that dinosaurs and Noah were buddies, your job is easy. Even Katie's most significant controversy was whether an asteroid or the Deccan Traps caused the demise of dinosaurs. But go look at any alternative medicine or creationist article. Every day we get one of the following showing up: some anonymous editor putting in their POV, a non-anonymous editor arguing tendentiously in the talk page, or out and out POV-warriors doing everything including throwing Arbcomm at individuals. It's tiresome, and to stand up to it requires strong will. You remind me of the officers in the US Navy like myself. I wore pretty uniforms and never shot anyone. But there were a bunch of people doing some nasty stuff keeping me in clean uniforms. OrangeMarlin 04:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Of all the analogies I've read today, I think that one is pretty accurate. Again, I'm very sorry that I upset you. It was not my intention. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)]]

Oh FF, you KNOW you are always right, no matter what. Yep, old FF, he is right and everyone else is always wrong. Yep, that is the truth. Why didn't I see it earlier? Yep, he never does anything wrong and his opinion is worth more than anyone else's. Ok now I see it. --Filll (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

OM I know you will join me in an AfD of Introduction to evolution. Because of editors like Firsfron, I have decided he is right. Let's get rid of our articles that might possibly offend trolls and POV pushers. Good work Firsfron. Feel proud of yourself. Let's delete it. --Filll (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Filll, time to chill out. This place tests the patience of a Rabbi. OrangeMarlin 05:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And again, because of the incredibly successful FF policy, another productive editor quits . I am sure glad we WP:AGF aren't you?--Filll (talk) 07:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I didn't like him very much. FF policy? What's that? OrangeMarlin 07:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

FF policy= The Firsfron policy. It is to WP:AGF and value unproductive editors over productive editors because the place is nicer and friendlier then. --Filll (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of admins do that. I think Firs is getting the point that fixing dinosaur articles is substantially different than dealing with Alternative medicine cruft. Now let me go kick a vandal's ass who's stalking my edits. (If only Firs can see this.) OrangeMarlin 07:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What we have is a special circumstance here. We cannot promote admins unless they have no enemies, so the only admins that we get are from noncontroversial articles. And they are not aware of the problems on controversial articles, or willing to do much about them. And we are naturally selecting for admins who will do nothing (since those that will like Adam and Durova etc leave or are booted) and also that know nothing about the problems. And so the editors have to deal with this on their own. And they quit because it is impossible. So spread the editor/expert rebellion !! We need to send a strong signal that we have a problem here. Maybe, if we are really lucky, someone will pay attention.--Filll (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Or we get Wikidudeman, who nearly snuck through. Have you read his tirades and rants? OrangeMarlin 07:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

New Arbcom case (maybe)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Homeopathy The idea of it is not to censor anyone, but to try and get some guidelines that will end some of the perennial wars once and for all. Adam Cuerden 11:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and alt-med

Re this edit, I don't think we can correctly say that all alt-meds are pseudosci (it's a diverse field)... granted some like Dawkins say so, but the IOM (see header at CAM) doesn't.... cheers, Jim Butler 20:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the issue (Dawkins aside). If it's been shown to work in clinical trials and is backed by scientific method, then it's medicine. Alternative medicine is just magic, which is pseudoscience. NO alternative medicine works on human beings. But some may work, but then it just becomes medicine. OrangeMarlin 20:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like your take is identical to Dawkins': stuff that works ceases to be CAM and simply becomes medicine. Fair enough, but sig sources see it differently (and don't define CAM as "magic"). IOM is a sci-consensus source and has more weight than Dawkins' formulation. Ernst and Cochrane agree evidence-based CAM isn't an oxymoron. regards, Jim Butler 21:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like sophistry, and just a matter of definition, no offense intended. A investigation in a few dictionaries might solve a lot of this.--Filll (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A matter of definition, yes; sophistry, guess that depends on where you stand. I think Dawkins' definition leans toward sophistry since it would label a good number of "unproven" (per EBM) surgical techniques as "alternative". Just read the lead section at Complementary and alternative medicine for a good overview of definitions; I think the Institute of Medicine carries a little more weight than a dicdef, though the latter are good indicators of popular understanding, and generally are closer to IOM than to Dawkins and Angell. From Edzard Ernst, read this; doesn't sound disingenuous to me. --Jim Butler 21:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am a big supporter of trying things in a scientific manner to determine if they work or not. Pharmaceutical companies are spending billions testing various fungi and plants from the Amazon just to see what may or may not work. Aspirin and digitalis started as "alternative medicine." But what I don't buy is that people consider Homeopathy a medical treatment after thousands of articles dispute that. Accupuncture, Chinese medicine, etc. all do the same. So, you might be right, but we say evidence-based CAM is science, where it has been reviewed and studied, but someone else will then throw Homeopathy back in. Where's the line? OrangeMarlin 21:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe in the scientific method too. Did pharmaceutical R&D for years before becoming an L.Ac. However, I think lumping all so-called-CAM's together is unwarranted. Which line are you concerned about homeopathy crossing on WP? Acu, unlike homeopathy, has some EBM (Cochrane, etc.) support, so we say that. I think EBM and CAM are overlapping sets, if only slightly. Agree with Richard McNally, cited at Pseudoscience: "When therapeutic entrepreneurs make claims on behalf of their interventions, we should not waste our time trying to determine whether their interventions qualify as pseudoscientific. Rather, we should ask them: How do you know that your intervention works? What is your evidence?" If evidence is lacking at the RCT, or better, meta-analysis level, it should not be OR (let alone "uncivil" -- pouring Filll a beer) for us to say so. I think for better or worse the terms "alt-med" and "comp-med" have entered into the popular lexicon, although I completely understand why many see them as oxymorons. --Jim Butler 21:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The fly in the ointment with the Dawkins argument, as applied to medicine, is that many "conventional" and widely-used treatments are actually not evidence-based. Many widely used and accepted interventions have never been proven effective in a Phase III or randomized, controlled trial, and some don't even have good Phase II data. Don't get me wrong; there's still a huge difference between, say, using bevacizumab for renal cell cancer and using an infinitesmally dilute solution of potassium dichromate... but even "conventional" medicine has always been as much an art (or religion) as a science. MastCell 23:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Art or religion? I hope not. And yeah, there's a lot of stuff physicians do that should be done. About 15 years ago, someone got the bright idea of using a high speed drill (really, a high speed drill) to clean out calcified stenosis in coronary arteries. A company started up (Rotablator, I believe it's name), sold out to Medtronic for $1 billion or so, and it didn't work. Good idea, save for the perforated arteries, high rate of restenosis, etc. But, and the point is it this, it started as a strange idea, no different than Homeopathy in retrospect, but after clinical trials showed it was actually dangerous, it was dropped. Otherwise, it stopped.OrangeMarlin 23:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Dropping what doesn't work/does harm: you are quite right. Medicine (generally) does this, and CAMs that don't do this are not being scientific. Full stop.

Mmmmaybe add in a hedge (a nice one, and not too expensive): if something is at worst "mere" placebo, does no harm, and isn't used in place of what does work, then it's not that big a deal. It may even be a good thing. If the placebo response depends on ritual, and people aren't getting that at the doctor's office, then they gotta go someplace. What could be more ideal than little sugar pills? Better than freaking slicing their knees up if they don't need it! --Jim Butler 04:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Deadly Nightshade

In your revert of my edit, you state: "No verification that homeopathic remedies have any clinical effect." If you read what you reverted, the text clearly states this: ...no known experimental evidence.... Please come to the talk page and let's discuss more if need be. Thanks. -- Levine2112 21:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Then don't mention it period. You're giving undue weight by mentioning it. And I've read the discussion section. It essentially consists of SA saying, "NO" and your saying "YES." Boring and not very productive. OrangeMarlin 21:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Then please come and explain why you think WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:WEIGHT apply. At least give us the benefit of an explanation rather than a laundry list of policies. P.S. Call editors "POV Pushers" is alway considered uncivil. Please refrain from that. -- Levine2112 22:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You think? OrangeMarlin 22:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

strategies for better editing

I'm sensitive to the fact that editors with a science or medical background can get frustrated. It can be argued that Misplaced Pages needs more tools to help editors find a path past science and medicine-related controversies towards good encyclopedia articles that describe all significant points of view in a balanced way. Alternatively, we can try to make better use of the tools we have. When we reach the point where our good faith is exhausted, it might be time for a wiki break. Another available option is to invite more editors to help on difficult articles, but that is a strategy that can be defeated if new editors are greeted with suspicion. "Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in" <-- I interpret this to be a content guideline, but I think it is good advice that can also be applied as a behavioral guideline. Problems arise when discussion page content becomes a partisan debate rather than a critical evaluation of how to fairly convert the contents of reliable sources into an encyclopedia article. Many editors with a narrow range of past experiences (including many with a science or medical background) have no experience in how to "share the stage" with people who hold alternative points of view and this makes many of these editors unsuited for editing Misplaced Pages. I might hold the personal view that a particular religion is built upon "gobbledygook", but it would not really be constructive for me to say so at the discussion page for a Misplaced Pages article about that religion. Saying things that you know are going to inflame an article writing collaboration is not constructive behavior. If I had a good published source from an authoritative expert on religions that described the religion as "gobbledygook", then I could make the case for including mention of that in the article, but it still would not make sense for me to proclaim on the discussion page that my personal view is that the religion is "gobbledygook". This is really a matter of civility and knowing how to get along with people who hold different views. One way to clean up the discussion page for Homeopathy and other controversial articles would be to start enforcing penalties for incivility. The atmosphere of incivility at Misplaced Pages has been a growing concern at the level of the Wikimedia Foundation, so I suspect there is some "tipping point" beyond which this problem will finally be dealt with. I'm not sure what the outcome will be, but I'd rather see immature and incivil editors placed under some form of restraint rather than see them continue to poison the atmosphere of the project. --JWSchmidt (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's one fallacy with your points: I don't believe in anything, I just look at what can be verified. The fact is I can verify, probably over 100,000 times, that Homeopathy does not work. It is nothing more than water, and since I don't "believe" in magic, spiritual powers, or other cruft, and there is no verification for that cruft, it begins to get tendentious when some POV-warrior keeps typing away that the Journal of Sedona Medicine is a reliable source that Homeopathy cures cancer. Many of us just run out of patience, and good "fuck you" to the editor is required. So, civility needs to be a lot more than being polite to trolls and POV-warriors, but it has to be that after 200KB of whining about how badly scientists are treating this woo, you've worn out the patience of the system. But, I've got to tell you, what's that going to prove? A bunch of people frustrated by not being able to express passion? We have worthless admins (and I can count on about 2 hands, maybe 1 foot, the number of admins actually know what they're doing) deciding what is or isn't civility? Civility cannot be defined, it is a "cultural norm." But I'm a cranky Jewish radical from California. My idea of civility may differ from the Preacher kid from Alabama. Who's to decide? You can't censor, that will be the death of Misplaced Pages. The tolerance of language and commentary should be broad. Personal attacks, such as "you are an asshole, and your mother wears combat boots", should be dealt with swiftly. Passive aggressive personal attacks are the worst, so they may take some thinking. So, I guess you might be right, but I think it will kill some of our involvement in the project, and then the POV-nutjobs will be ruling this place. OrangeMarlin 21:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the dark side, Orange. But seriously, they will block you. They did it to me. They don't care about the double standard. They only care that their precious idealizations of civility are maintained. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, I think you should take a wikibreak. This is an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, not an encyclopedia for battle hardened editors. You understand and highly value policies like WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:V. But newcomers probably do not. You may have come to wikipedia with pre-conceived high regard for WP:NPOV, but not everybody else has. Many people are coming to wikipedia after participating on other internet forums where debate, trolling, etc., are the norm. It takes time to convert editers from POV warriors to valued contributors. Sometimes I wonder if the goal here among certain established editors is to run off those who push a POV because it is easier than taking the time to train new contributors. TableManners 06:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not EVER presume to give me psychiatric advice. I am perfectly fine with editing, enjoying cleaning up a number of articles. Now, if you wish to stay on my good side, never do this again, even if you are a world-class shrink.. I don't give a hoot about little trolls who show up pushing their POV, along with numerous other editors. If we all took a break, it will be to protest this type of discussion. So stop. OrangeMarlin 08:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd take an editor like OM over several dozen of these "anyone can edit" types. Progress might be made towards the goal of being better than Britannica. Baegis (talk) 08:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't beat up TableManners too much. He's getting to be a fairly neutral editor, despite his leanings towards the dark side.  :) OrangeMarlin 08:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

i hope u dont go on strike LOL how is nemo these days?!!!!!!!!11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.209.89.174 (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Nemo? What the hell are you talking about? OrangeMarlin 20:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Nemo is a popular animated fish, which is presumably an allusion to your username. Of course, it's probably a good thing that you didn't follow such loose associations... MastCell 22:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about Jules Verne. I'm less culturally aware than I should be I suppose. Oh well. OrangeMarlin 22:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well at least the rumors of an impending "strike" are spreading.--Filll (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you wait until the release of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed before starting the strike? TableManners 04:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Acu

Kudos for adding this study on nausea at acupuncture. So, it is good form on WP to cite RCT's (of good quality) and not just meta-analyses? Some folks have objected to that. Anyway, good that article is on your radar. I'm fixin' to de-cruftify it. cheers - Jim Butler 04:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's my personal philosophy on references. Original sources are best, especially if you can at least read the whole abstract online. They give the data that I want to read, but it must be from a peer-reviewed journal, and I don't consider any CAM journal as peer reviewed. Second down is a really good review article, but it also has to be peer-reviewed, but I need to be able to read more of the article than the abstract. I have access to medline and other online pdf files, but I can't link to them, since I pay a huge subscription fee, and most readers won't. If there is an online pdf of the review then it actually moves up the list. Books are last on my list, because I can't read them online, so I have to trust the author, which is difficult on Misplaced Pages. I don't like websites, newspapers, videos, magazines, or anything else, if we're speaking about a medical article. Actually, I went to acupuncture with a stick up my ass about it. I'm the most negative reader of cruft ever. And when I did a pubmed search on certain kinds of pain and acupuncture, the number of real live articles from real peer-reviewed journals was overwhelming. I actually selected one of the probably 200 that have been published in the last couple of years. If there are those high quality type of double-blind studies going on, then use the best reference, not reviews or the such. Now, I still found some cruft in Acupuncture, but I ran out of time. I prefer other types of articles on disease rather than general articles like this. But, I'll help out. I love it when I'm proven wrong, because I'm such a skeptic that I really read the articles, I don't take one sentence and say "yes, Acupuncture cures cancer, erectile dysfunction, and male pattern baldness." Though if it did, I'd be an Acupuncturist, making a couple grand an hour!!!!! OrangeMarlin 05:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm stoked that you are looking at this stuff, because as Carl Sagan said, valid criticism is doing you a favor. That is a good and pragmatic take on evidence; I like linking to the actual stuff and not getting too meta-meta. I'll retain the Cochrane but work some of the good recent studies in, and do it at Citizendium while I'm at it. (User:Gleng is there now; WP's loss was CZ's gain.)

Erectile dysfunction... the Chinese believe acu can treat that, for sure. There is a famous point between the anus and the tip of the coccyx, whose Chinese name translates as "Long Strong" or "Long and Hard". One of my profs, from Shanghai, spent a portion of his internship needling just that point. Patients lined up out the door, hour after hour. God, I had it easy. cheers, Jim Butler 06:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-NPOV claims

I disagree with your claim that my edits were non neutral point of view. The major thing is that the article in question is not about intelligent design but is instead about a movie on intelligent design. Therefore the edits i made which deleted parts attempting to discredit intelligent design (incidentally I'm not a big fan of ID myself) were not appropriately located and needed to be removed. Cryo921 (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

We do not remove sourced material that is there for NPOV and is the result of consensus. If you want to have more pro-ID material and pro-creationist material, we can try to restore some of the sections I wrote that were removed because people felt it was making the article too pro-ID and pro-creationist.--Filll (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What consensus? All I see on the talk page is one big argument over whether it is NPOV or not. Furthermore quality wise it is a mess. One of the paragraphs i removed was just saying They present this claim in the movie and then several sentences about why ID is wrong. In 'An Inconvenient Truth' the criticism is confined to its own section, not sprinkled around the article introduction. Cryo921 (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you researched this article, and the prior versions of this article that were deleted, and the discussions of this article on other talk pages that go back 8 months or more? All the history of discussion on this article? The current article is the result of that consensus, whether you like it or not.

Also we do not put criticism in a criticism ghetto section of our articles in most cases since this is frowned on. This is often frowned upon according to the policies and principles of Misplaced Pages.

For example, from : Examples that may warrant attention include "Segregation" of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself. Article sections devoted solely to criticism, or "pro and con" sections within articles are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such kinds of article structure are appropriate. (See e.g., Misplaced Pages:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure, Template:Criticism-section).--Filll (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... Okay, forget the seperate criticism section then. However as far as i can tell the consensus was only about the first paragraph of the lead in. The parts that i deleted were after that. In fact looking through the article one of the things i deleted was mentioned in two other places already. Cryo921 (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you even aware of what i deleted? and should we move this debate to the article talk page? Cryo921 (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

All right i brought up the changes i wish to make on the talk page. Sorry for any trouble i've caused. Cryo921 (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to give you a piece of advice. Most serious editors around here automatically discount it when someone states "I'm not a big fan of ID myself," or similar opinions. It has been resolved that we will have a critique of the film, much like what we see with An Inconvenient Truth. OrangeMarlin 19:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted

Wells

How does Twinkle determine whether something is pseudoscience? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle is just an editing tool. The "pseudoscience" description is based on the sources which you removed in your edit. MastCell 22:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As I stated in my edit summary, the sources were written by other scientists. Wells is himself a scientist, with a PH.D. in molecular and cell biology, or something like that. So it shouldn't be said that those things are pseudosciences. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Kary Mullis has a Nobel prize. Does that mean everything he says about HIV makes any sense? David D. (Talk) 22:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No. The fact that he has a Nobel doesn't make everything he says true. But the fact that there are people who disagree with him doesn't make what he says false or pseudoscience. People can disagree. But it doesn't need to be labelled pseudoscience. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Many would disagree with you. A hall mark of pseudo science is cherry picking the data. He does that. David D. (Talk) 22:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you source that? Can anyone give me a reason why the statement that I removed should be included in the Wells article? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Who for, Wells or Mullis? We could always just call it crap science. Is that what you mean, bad science is not the same as pseudoscience? David D. (Talk) 00:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I go for a trip up into the mountains, return, and there's this stuff on my page. And you all kept me from several good jokes about Twinkle. You didn't realize that version 2.5 now includes a Pseudoscience detector. Hasn't everyone upgraded? Well anyways, not much for me to add here. Wells is full of junk science.OrangeMarlin 05:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

JBFrenchhorn... the reason the claim should stay is that Academies of Sciences, which are reliable sources for sci consensue, say so. I improved the sourcing in this edit. Note also that I removed the claim that the sci community considers AIDS reappraisal a pseudoscience, because the source cited is from one guy and doesn't support the claim. So it's not a matter of my own opinion (I could argue AIDS reappraisal is far more life-threatening than ID), but of sources. regards, Jim Butler (t) 07:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Theory vs Hypothesis

Yes, there is a very good reason for changing theory to hypothesis. One of the biggest points of confusion lies with the misunderstandings of the definition of hypothesis and theory, and by calling these hypotheses on the origin of life "theories", you are only increasing the confusion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.164.194 (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

......all doing our bit then

Yep, I too have been guilty of sticking to 'fun' things but I felt I have guided schizophrenia into a nice neutral Featured Article after FAR...(talk page makes for humorous reading though), and had numerous edit wars on the various antipsychotic articles. I intend to work up bipolar disorder as well as psychiatry to FAC at some time, but suspect both will be a bun-fight and need lots of energy and spare time. Lucky there are a few medical chums around to revert silly stuff there though.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Good job!!!! That's what I'm trying to do with Alzheimer's disease. It had a bit of the Alternative Medicine cruft (you know Ginkgo, which proved to do nothing at all). The only edit war we had was the styling of citations. I can live with that! I actually went over to acupuncture to rip it apart, then I read the citations. Then I found more. Now it doesn't cure male pattern baldness or erectile dysfunction, but it does provide a mild analgesic effect. What you learn around here can be good. And homeopathy still is just water.  :) OrangeMarlin 06:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I can cope with acupuncture, especially if I hypothesize it has something to do with stimulating peripheral nerves which somehow 'trick' different ones. I figure if one can get left arm pain from an AMI then maybe banging a pain receptor peripherally may tonk something else...plus when I was a smartass medical student visiting an alternative medical practitioner for a prac in med school this guy placed on in some Qi place in my hand and the sensation was freaky.....agree about 10 to the minus log 60 etc....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy article probation notification

You should be aware that Homeopathy and related articles are under probation - Editors making disruptive edits to these pages may be banned by an administrator from homeopathy and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of blocks and bans, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. —Whig (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)