Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:28, 2 June 2008

Click here to leave me a message. Remember, if you leave a message here, I'll reply here.

Task Forces

How do I start a task force for the Ducks page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trakrecord (talk • contribs) 23:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Task force? What's a task force? OrangeMarlin 00:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Natural Standard Acupuncture Flashcard

Hi orangemarlin, I recently tried to add a footnote for an efficacy table by natural standard at rvita.com, but it got deleted. Can you help me understand why? Natural standard is one of the most respected research organizations in iCAM and rvita is the only consumer site that makes the information available.

http://www.naturalstandard.com

Dr. andrew weil is on the medical board for example...

sorry, i'm new to the wikipedia thing and want to learn more from a poweruser like yourself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exodus777 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If I may step in here, rvita.com is not a reliable source of unbiased information. Please see in particular Misplaced Pages's policy concerning self published sources. Additionally, Dr. Weil is an advocate for a particular brand of non-mainstream medicine, which must be considered when deciding how an article should weight his opinion. We also have a guideline on fringe theories which applies acupuncture in the context of medicine and may be of interest to you, particularly the Notability versus acceptance section. Happy editing. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 15:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

MEDMOS

I apologize for inflicting this editor on you. For the background, I suggest taking a look at Talk:Da Costa's syndrome. I've got very little time right now, but this is the one article I'm trying to keep up with, since there's an ongoing dispute with this editor there. (The usual: all sources, even by known experts, are "unreliable" unless they line up with his quirky POV.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey don't worry about it. I've been battling this POV warrior for months. I just saw he was blocked, so your ANI was helpful. I wish you had mentioned it, I would have gotten involved. OrangeMarlin 00:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Lung cancer

We've got a tobacco apologist in action. For some reason, this doesn't appear on the obvious Junk science lists. LeadSongDog (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Alzheimer's disease

Hi OM, I have a free day tomorrow which I'll devote to the FAC. Best wishes, Graham. GrahamColm 21:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks. Then let's get AIDS back to FA!!!! OrangeMarlin 22:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential

Orangemarlin,

Would you be interested in helping me with The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential. History: the article started off as an advert. After a short edit war between a supporter and fellow WP:MED editor (since retired) I had a go at rewriting it as NPOV as I could stomach. That was 2 years ago. Since then, I've watched it. Every now again, some fan or member of staff comes along and deletes the criticism. Over the last two months, two editors have come along and added a whole lot of positive stuff while slowly chipping away at the negative. I just haven't had the time to look into it but tonight decided that I simply must. See my comments at Talk:The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential. I have no connection with the IAHP at all and hadn't even heard about it before WP. I think the article needs revised. Shorter. Appropriate weight. Avoid separate support/criticism sections. If you are interested in collaboration, perhaps a sandbox is the place to work on such a revision? I don't think it is a huge task, but will probably involve a battle. Are you up for it? You can respond here. Colin° 22:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If this causes me to start drinking, the guilt will be on your head. OrangeMarlin 22:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I know you asked me to watch this article, and I've been sadly delinquent, mostly just watching an SPA slant the article more and more. I was waiting to see the final result before diving in too much, but I agree that there are some problems afoot there that need to be addressed and will try to provide additional input. MastCell  22:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow. WP:WEIGHT is a serious problem. The "support" section is huge, and frankly, support from George Bush (you've got to be kidding, like that's someone I trust) and Gorbachev means nothing. You're right, this article is a huge advertisement. OrangeMarlin 22:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, don't feel bad. I too have been taking a wait and see attitude. And the deletion of criticism is much more subtle and harder to simply revert. Can either of you two guys get access to any of the papers listed by QuackWatch or the AAP statement from 1999 (reaffirmed in 2006). Colin° 07:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a suggestion.

No matter how much you justify your actions, such as the section you recently archived in archive 9, you are incorrect. Wrong. Racism is uncivil, and, therefore, can be treated in any manner chosen. There is no reason to treat a racist, anti-semitic pig anything but uncivilly is fundamentally against the Five Key Pillars of Misplaced Pages and a violation of Misplaced Pages's rules of No personal attacks. I strongly suggest that you cut out the attacks in the future. You may disagree with their words, but you do NOT get to be incivil because you judge others to be incivl. An eye for an eye leaves Misplaced Pages blind. SirFozzie (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine. But very very sad that we tolerate such behavior on other's part. I doubt I'll see a smack about the side of the head of that person. OrangeMarlin 02:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed my mind. I have to stand up to what is right. You'll laugh at me, call me names, or threaten me with a block. But how do you think the Nazi's ended up killing Jews? Or the KKK lynch blacks? Do you think it came to them in a vision, one day they weren't doing it, the next they were? No, it came from words and ideas. Those words and ideas inspired others, and the next thing you know it's Kristallnacht. And I have no clue today where those ideas start, and I have no clue where they may end up. But words have power. DHMO has stated that he does not believe White Pride is racist or anti-semitic. That is his opinion. Mine is that White Pride is no different than any other racist group in the US. In fact, others back me up, specifically the Jewish Anti-defamation League. Yes, they're Jewish. Yes, they're sensitive to all attacks. But they know where words lead, and we've been down that path so many times, and it never ends up good for we Jews.

I have chosen in my life to resist all anti-semitism and racism wherever I see it, because I know my forefathers ignored it, and I don't have many forefathers left because they didn't stand up to it. You might be right that Misplaced Pages goes blind, but I'm going blind by reading how White Pride is completely acceptable, and that admins here can have that racist/anti-semitic background. So, I've had to read where I'm a member of some ridiculous cabal, that my feelings on anti-Semitism should be dismissed (you ask how this is related, it is because I was offended by someone using the term Jew Comedian, and the undertow said that that is not offensive, when it is, and DHMO supports that opinion).

Why should I ignore it? Why should I be the one who reads this offensive language and sit back and smile? Where does this lead? Words matter, because they hurt. I'm saying those words are highly offensive, and you chastise me. How fair is that? What would you like me to do? Pretend that the gas chamber is a shower? Because that's the logical conclusion from accepting hurtful ideas and words. So maybe instead of taking what appears to be a gleeful opportunity to slap me about side my head for expressing an opinion, you could think about those words and ideas expressed by individuals here can be so uncivil as to be hateful and emotionally painful. I cry every time I read of racism or anti-Semitism in words, because I know what they mean. They mean I'm less of of a person, for no other reason but that I was born as a Jew. OrangeMarlin 02:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Which particular incident are you referring to SirFozzie? I agree that insinuations which are polite may be hard to police, so a diff may be helpful here. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This statement, and his subsequent defense of that statement, such as and . There is not politeness in these, they are flat out attacks on another user. SirFozzie (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The first diff is a discussion of a highly controversial concept and does not mention an editor. Getting to the other two. And neither are the other two. They are conditional using the word if WRT DHMO. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

They are flat-out calling DMHO that. That's an attack. (edit) He even admits to asking other editors for support in calling DMHO that.. it. I asked slrubenstein and Jayjg, both of whom are fellow members of the tribe as to whether or not I was out of bounds on considering DHMO a racist, anti-semitic enabling pig. SirFozzie (talk) 03:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

SirFozzie, do you know what a conditional is - it means the bit with the if. (i.e. if 'x' then 'y'). The whole moulton/white whatever saga is that Alex launched into was extremely controversial and led to a lot of acrimonious discussion. I am supporting Alex but am monitoring the situation myself as well.

OK, that bit should have had a few conditionals - everything else apart from the bolded bit which is clearly an abbreviation is fine by me - I think it was meant to have the 'if x then y' etc. .Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your analysis Casliber. Apparently Sir Fozzie chose to not read how emotional this is to me. Once again, let's be civil because that trumps racist ideology. I'm sticking with medical articles. If there is something I'm misunderstanding about DHMO's support of White Pride ideology, please email me. I'll be glad to read it. OrangeMarlin 05:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

A different issue from the DHMO RfA

Orangemarlin, I would like you to consider one aspect of this particular post of yours - you have abbreviated SynergeticMaggot's username to "maggot". I will take a moment to refresh your memory on your !vote during my recent RfA, where you concurred with the opinions of QuackGuru and Guettarda; they had opined that I was (at least) insensitive by abbreviating QuackGuru's username to "Quack". I suggest to you that abbreviating SynergeticMaggot's username to "maggot" is also (at minimum) insensitive. I urge you to revisit your comment and insert SynergeticMaggot's full username into your comment in place of the insensitive abbreviation. Thanks. Risker (talk) 04:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I should refactor that. BTW, though I concurred with their opinions on your RfA, it wasn't as a result of your using his name in pejorative manner. But I'm over that.OrangeMarlin 05:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Orangemarlin, for your refactoring. I'm not sure exactly what caused you concern about my RfA, and I'd be happy to talk to you about it at any time, particularly if you still have any concerns. If it helps, I crossed paths with QuackGuru almost exclusively in the Essjay controversy article, and have no particular interest in working in any of the more "fringe theory" areas where I believe he edits quite a bit. Best, Risker (talk) 05:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I am suspicious of candidates who might express an anti-science POV. Now, if I had known you had an interest in old Montreal Canadiens players, I would have voted strong support.  :) OrangeMarlin 05:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Geez, I should have put it in big bold letters - I grew up watching them too. One of the biggest thrills I ever had was being seated next to Ken Dryden at some fundraising dinner several years ago. Couldn't wipe the smile off my face for days. Risker (talk) 06:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My best friend is from Toronto (a Leaf fan, the biggest bunch of whiners in the sport world, and I don't care if you block me for a personal attack on Leaf fans)...I digress. His father is big supporter of the Liberal Party of Canada, and they invited me up to Toronto for a fundraiser of sorts. I got to meet him, and he told some story about Dave Dryden wearing a Gump Worsley jersey. I can't remember the details, but I remember laughing. Well, anyways, Toronto is on year 40 without a Cup. LOL. Yeah, and I blame you completely for failure to tell me about your hockey fascination. Of course, I accept no blame for not more closely analyzing your contributions. Of course, if you were a Leafs fan, I'd have voted 10 times and canvassed everyone to vote against you. Just a warning.  :) OrangeMarlin 06:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I hate to ask (and I hate to even raise the issue because my biases are usually pro-Canadian), but what do you think of people who lean vaguely in the direction of the Red Wings? Guettarda (talk) 06:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

A little annoyed by that "Hockeytown, USA" moniker, but any team that had Steve Yzerman isn't bad. And fans of them aren't bad. So, I'm OK with it. Hopefully, this doesn't mean we're in a Red Wings cabal. LOL. OrangeMarlin 06:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree, the Wings are okay by me too. No worries about me ever getting excited by the Leafs. For that matter, I doubt anyone can get excited by the Leafs. Maybe the Original Six cabal? Risker (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Kings fan here. It'll have to be the Original Six plus Second Six Cabal!! Except, I will have to oppose any members of the cabal that are whiny Leafs fans. Sorry. OrangeMarlin 06:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Having married a Michigander (and lived there for 7 years) I kinda feel obliged to support the Pistons and the Wings. As for "Hockeytown, USA", I think the important part there is USA. Without that qualifier it would be ridiculous. With it, it's just moderate arrogance. And if you've seen Detroit, you wouldn't begrudge them that. Guettarda (talk) 06:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

... according to AIDS denialists?

"AIDS origins theories opposed to the scientific consensus" (or whatever it was exactly) was a lumbering and inelegant article name, but it appears you've swept some non-denialists into the category of denialists with your article name change. I'm not sure if Paul Farmer ever belonged in the article -- I'm currently researching that. However, I don't think he denies any consensus position about the ultimate origins of HIV, and I don't see where he denies that HIV causes AIDS. At worst, he seems to be opposed to the mainstream epidemiology saying that HIV originated in Africa, spread to Haiti, then spread from Haiti to the U.S. (He has said the direction was more likely Africa->U.S.->Haiti.) I believe the mainstream case (Africa->Haitia->U.S.) has been strengthened very recently, in which case it might be virtual consensus, but I don't know if Paul Farmer has responded to this more recent work; if he has, I don't know whether he rejected it or accepted it.

Likewise for the much-less-exemplary Leonard Horowitz, who apparently hews to the conspiracist line that HIV emerged in labs and is being used to kill off populations that the People Who Rule the World consider undesirable. He's a paranoid quack, to be sure. (I say, wearily; I'm his Misplaced Pages biographer for lack of anyone else who can stomach the topic.) Does that make him a "denialist"? He certainly doesn't deny that there's an epidemic, and that it's killing people, and that it's caused by HIV. And there are others mentioned who believe HIV is causing AIDS.

In short, you've made the title less accurate. Have you made it more NPOV, as you claim in your edit summary? Well, does everybody now implicitly lumped in as "denialist" in the article meet the definition in AIDS denialism? Clearly not. If anything, you've violated WP:BLP, at least in the case of Paul Farmer. In the case of Leonard Horowitz, if he were to complain about how grievously wounded and libeled he is by this article (which he could, especially since he was recently skewering Peter Duesberg as a denialist on a radio show on which they both appeared), I wouldn't feel sorry for him. However, that's irrelevant. He would have a point legally. And he's more likely to sue Misplaced Pages.org than Paul Farmer is. Yakushima (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Not trying to deny anything here, but a search doesn't show Paul Farmer or Leonard Horowitz as appearing in the denialism article. Presumably they could be mentioned briefly in the main Aids article if need be, or if there are several well documented instances a new Fringe theories about Aids article would be one possibility. . . dave souza, talk 13:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey I'm not going to battle too much on this. However, I was pretty careful to read the cites for each person in the group, and I don't recall where any of them were not denialists. OrangeMarlin 16:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

In the case of Paul Farmer, the cite is a book, without a link. There is nothing in the book title per se to indicate that a denialist interpretation is in order. From most recent news about Paul Farmer

Jim Kim, professor at Harvard Medical School and a co-founder of Partners in Health, said that when Farmer "stared treating people in 1998 in Haiti, everyone said he was absolutely nuts," adding, "And here we are, you know, not even a decade later, where the goal is to treat every single human on the planet who needs HIV treatment with the right drugs."

According to "60 Minutes," Kim and Farmer also have worked to lower prices for drugs to treat multi-drug resistant TB by improving access to generics. In addition, the organization trains community health workers to visit HIV/AIDS and TB patients at home to ensure they adhere to their treatment regimens (Pitts, "60 Minutes," CBS, 5/4).

Just sample randomly from news about him over the years. Farmer: Believes there's a syndrome legitimately called AIDS. Believes it's caused by HIV. Believes that current drug regimens can be effective. Works to make those treatments available in Haiti. This doesn't fit any definition of "AIDS denialist" I can think of. Horowitz -- you know my feelings about him, but I just don't see how he's a denialist either. Nor can I see how you could have inferred this by looking at how he's cited. So in one quick stroke, you've created WP:BLP violation. Violation against one public figure who bids fair to be a living saint, and another who might a litigiously paranoid quack. If you're working from some sense of mission to make Misplaced Pages the go-to/first-stop source on ridiculous claims about HIV and AIDS, this isn't exactly the way to do it. Could you please revert the change? I've tried undo, and it doesn't seem to be taking. Yakushima (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't own these articles, and you apparently have done some research on it, so I suggest you be bold and make the changes. Excellent job on your part! OrangeMarlin 18:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've "boldly" clicked on "undo" three times now. It doesn't change. Could you please either revert the change yourself or tell me what I'm doing wrong when I try to revert it? (Ideally, both.) Yakushima (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

A discussion on some of your edits...

... is taking place here. Lara❤Love 13:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)