Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:04, 8 March 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

Watching Anti-Science POV admin candidates

• None for now.

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:

prostatitis

I asked for that section, though it needs to be reduced. Please check the talk page. I'll edit it and put it back tomorrow,unless you want to do that. DGG (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No go for it. It reads like cruft, especially when it starts with "proven." And the inline citations were messed up. I don't know much about Prostatitis, I was asked to watch the page long ago with respect to CAM woo. I'll admit my brain shuts off when I read the word "proven." A cursory look at the citations also shows 20 year old research. I'd think we could do better than that. OrangeMarlin 18:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Redlinks

Thanks for fixing all my broken redlinks. Stalker. :) MastCell  19:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Proud of it!!!!! Please sir, don't indef me for refactoring your poorly written, useless wikilinks!!!  :) OrangeMarlin 19:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Bay Of Fundy

To be fair, I don't think 69.250.142.218 was vandalising the Bay of Fundy article, it was just poorly worded and uncited. If you look here; Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness, you'll see that the events leading to what was diagnosed as polio start with him falling in the Bay of Fundy. --Escape Orbit 20:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Polio arises from falling into the Bay of fundy???? I'm going to check those cites. And if you know anything about me, I give no good faith to anyone, unless I know them very well. Anonymous editors get even less good faith. OrangeMarlin 21:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not likely, but from what I've read elsewhere the suggestion was (whether accurate or not, and according to the medical knowledge of the day) that his encounter with the Bay suppressed his immune system, leaving him vulnerable to the infection. This could well be a "commonly known fact". My point was that 69.250.142.218's edit was poor, rightly reverted, but not vandalism. The anonymous editor (I suspect there's only the one) has a bad record, but has contributed in the past. So unjust accusations of vandalism are counter-productive. What happened to WP:FAITH? --Escape Orbit 00:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

All right, I'm getting a little annoyed here. I give no faith to someone who writes this on their user talk page, who has been blocked several times, and who isn't a very nice person. WP:AGF means I assume it until the point the person doesn't rate it any more, and this person does not deserve anything but a permanent block. Onto the medical knowledge, it is an urban myth that being cold suppresses the immune system. If that were the case, the Vikings would have ruled some island in the South Pacific. His immune system could have been compromised by just about anything, but the polio virus is rather infectious, so it's possible he just caught it anywhere. OrangeMarlin 17:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Is NATURE not RS?

Hey Orangemarlin! You chose to delete my reference to a Nature article that is on the memory of water issue that is neither supportive nor antagonistic (maybe a tad more of the latter). Perhaps it would have been better to ask your GOOD question on the discussion page before deleting it...still, I too will be curious what others have to say. DanaUllman 15:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Nature is a great source. It's just that it's a "letter", which are not usually peer-reviewed and are almost always "opinions"; moreover, unless you have access to a paid subscription, it is impossible to read to full meat of the article. And I'm not sure why you used it as a source, but I'm pretty certain it doesn't say what you think it says. OrangeMarlin 16:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

<EC>Moreover, I do NOT engage in discussion sections with POV-warriors, which are rampant in this article. NO good comes from it. Tell me what you're trying to show with the article, and I will re-read it again. I cannot post it here, because it is not in the public domain, but whatever you're trying to say, I will see if the article supports it. But it is an opinion piece, not very reliable or verifiable.OrangeMarlin 17:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to be accurate it's not a letter but an editorial column. Simon Ball writes many of these for nature in as a consultant editor. As to whether Nature is a reliable source, that depends. I have seen a few examples of editorial decisions that ether go against the reviewers or use tabloid like titles and content that are inaccurate to sensationalise an issue. At the end of the day Nature are media whores and they love to publish science that hits the NEWS headlines. Consequently, anything published in Nature (or Science) needs to be viewed with a more critical eye, IMO. David D. (Talk) 17:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That's harsh. Good science can be newsworthy. Science and Nature are both peer-reviewed, which is the gold standard. OrangeMarlin 17:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly good science can be newsworthy. But there have been bad editorial decisions, for example, a Nature editor used "Genetic Pollution" in the title of a similar op ed piece to describe hybridisation between dogs and wolves. Looked great, but is a disservice to use it inaccurately. The paper on GMO contamination of maize in mexico was published against reviewers recommendation and had to be retract. There are other examples of this rush to publish or sensationalise. Given this tendancy, I am even more careful than usual to double check incredible claims that I read in Nature.

I agree peer review is the best we have but it is not a gold standard in the sense that bad science gets through peer review. David D. (Talk) 17:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not everything in Nature is peer-reviewed. Letters, Brief Comms, Articles (in the formal senses) will always be peer-reviewed. News stories and editorials will usually not be. Badgerpatrol (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys...I was trying to be helpful to skeptics here. The Nature editorial is more anti-homeopathy than pro-homeopathy. I used it as a reference to how mainstream science still hasn't accepted the memory of water hypothesis. In actual fact, I was showing you that I am not a POV-warrior (sorry...life isn't always so easy to categorize everything neatly)...and I am amazed that some editors are so so so conservative that they refer to Nature and Science as whores. Wow. DanaUllman 21:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't sure. Like I said, I read the article, and I was almost certain it was representing the science of homeopathy fairly, which is it isn't science.. As for Nature and Science, every single journal in the world has screwed up. I think they're fine reference sources, no different that any other peer-reviewed journal. I'm not sure what David is pushing. OrangeMarlin 21:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not pushing any agenda, just noting the obvious, that even articles in a peer reviewed journal need a critical eye. That's why single papers are less useful than a body of work. As to the whores comment, it seems to be a recent phenomena and obviously just my opinion. Get a second opinion but I think you'll find many scientists will agree there is a trend towards their editors pushing stories rather than science. As orangemarlin pointed out, this is not always a bad thing. This is all relative, clearly most of the articles and letters to Nature are very high quality. David D. (Talk) 00:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Every reliable source is not always reliable. I'm the first to criticize NATURE, but I referenced one articulate review of some memory of water work, and even though I didn't agree with many points made, I thought that they were a reasonably responsible viewpoint of the mainstream. So, OM, is it OK for me to UNDO the undo you did? (that was a fun question, and I hope that you understand the question) DanaUllman 03:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you know?

I'm now welcoming submissions for my userpage-specific version of "Did you know? If you get 3 items featured there, you get a barnstar and, probably, blocked for incivility. MastCell  00:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If I get blocked for incivility, I expect you to immediately unblock. It's only fair!!!! OrangeMarlin 00:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh oh... I may have opened a can of worms here. Maybe you ought to keep anything blockworthy off-wiki... I actually had a few that I typed up and then deleted as just too... er... inflammatory. MastCell  00:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

My archives are full of this type of stuff. I'll keep anything blockworthy safely archived.  :) OrangeMarlin 00:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, how do I ad some of the treasures I've seen? OrangeMarlin 00:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll probably regret this... the template is at User:MastCell/DYK, or you can just email me or leave them on my talkpage. MastCell  04:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

simply too otheaded to o

I was gonna ask for clarification! :( El_C 08:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

He was speaking Cockney? OrangeMarlin 14:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions

Hi! As somebody who commented on a January proposal to place all articles related to homeopathy on article probation, I would greatly appreciate your input on a new proposal to help combat disruption that would scrap the probation and implement discretionary sanctions. I apologize for any intrusion, but this is to my knowledge the first time sanctions of this nature have been attempted to be enforced by the community, so I feel that a wide range of opinions is necessary. Thank you in advance for any comments you may make. east718 (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

examples?

We are both listed as "oppose" to East's proposal. I am still sounding for around positive possiblities, trying to develop worthwhile elements that might be synthesized into a real proposal. 1. I am not sure that I am familiar with example articles & specifics you may have in mind. A few wikilinked articles or debates, por favor? 2. Do you have any thought that there is a workable neutral structure and set of criteria that would break the logjam? Thanks.--I'clast (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not give specific examples, since those anti-science admins will come down on my ass. Mostly I leave them alone, and they leave me alone, which is a perfect situation. Just look over what certain admins have done to articles like Homeopathy, Water memory, and Thuja. With regards to #2, I just don't know. The logjam should be indef banning of anti-science POV warriors, but that's harsh. OrangeMarlin 01:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Courland Pocket

I have undone your removal of Soviet operations from this article. If you would like to discuss the rationale for their inclusion, please feel free to do so in the article talk page.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Aids POV

You are incorrect in your decision to remove the aids POV tag. You neglected to verify the validity of the citations, and upon my brother's examination, the citations actually contradict the statement saying that conservatives are uneducated about aids. Per his request, I will be removing the text in error. It is incorrect, misleading, and contradicts citations. If you contest that edit, I will appeal it to your superiors.Merechriolus (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "superiors" here; if you feel the tag merits inclusion, argue your case on the talk page, citing & observing policy. El_C 05:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I know my way around here, don't worry about me.Merechriolus (talk) 06:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not worried. El_C 06:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I know, I just hate it when these people log off as soon as they make their edits.Merechriolus (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd address those sock accusations before I start running around yelling to the "superiors". Baegis (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi baegis, I'd like you to PROVIDE RATIONALE for reverting my edit.Merechriolus (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what that means. Please sign your edits using four tildes. Thanks. El_C 06:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I meant that when Marlin made this edit, he later became inactive and now cannot provide relevant input.Merechriolus (talk) 07:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)