Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Orangemarlin (talk | contribs) at 19:27, 10 February 2008 (→SS: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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:

RE: Did you even read the diffs?

Yes, I read the diffs and, as I have explained on WP:3RR I do not feel that they are sufficiently related to violate 3RR. Please feel free to review my previous decisions, and I will be happy to answer any questions on them. Regarding the edit war, I would point out to you that your actions are also verging on edit warring (three reverts in as many hours) and remind you that you do not need to make more than three edits to violate the policy. TigerShark (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm smart enough to stop and let others see the errors of the POV-pushers. So don't be accusing me of anything. OrangeMarlin 00:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If you mean that you are smart enough to stop at three reverts, then please note the following from WP:3RR

"Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks."

Going up to three reverts and then letting somebody else revert four times, can still be considered edit warring. You should be trying to reach consensus with other editors rather than aiming to "let others see the errors of the POV-pushers". TigerShark (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so you're such a great admin that you A) recognize that I'm gaming the system, B) that I'm totally idiotic and don't know how to read the rules, and C) that in fact I'm reverting POV edits that are clearly wrong. I am so sorry that I am such a fool compared to your immense knowledge and ability to have insight into my behavior. Please accept my sincerest apologies for failing to see how perfect you are and how obviously imperfect I am. Thank you. I guess I should go edit a children's encyclopedia. Sorry to have bothered you in your drive to create a perfect Misplaced Pages. OrangeMarlin 01:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Chiro research or criticism?

Check this out.... be careful what you wish for... ;-) --Jim Butler (t) 01:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Vaccine controversy

Please see Talk:Vaccine controversy#A summary of the controversy is not a lie for comments on the recent changes to Vaccine controversy. Eubulides (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Do whatever you want. People will read this article and actually think Autism is a real effect of the vaccination. If your ethics support that, I don't have the time to battle you. Good luck. OrangeMarlin 17:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

SS

Is it really necesarry to explain why I removed the novel "SS General" from the SS article's "Further reading" section? If you've read the novel, you'll know that it's not exactly a go-to for objective information on the SS. The "further reading" section is not a place where one is to recommend one's favorite airport novels that just so happen to be tangentially related to the matter at hand.

Your friend, Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.191.83 (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Then explain yourself. It takes 2 nanoseconds. OrangeMarlin 19:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)