Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:14, 26 December 2013

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Vibroacoustic therapy

Hello folks.
Just declined a WP:A10 on this, as it is quite a different thing to the prenatal procedure Vibroacoustic stimulation.
I, erm, don't really know where to start with this article, and need a whole lotta help.
Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm the one who tagged both Vibroacoustic therapy and Vibroacoustic Stimulation for A10 deletion, since at the time they were in fact both duplicates of Vibroacoustic stimulation. I didn't however see at the time that the latter had until recently been a genuine article (no pun intended) that had just been completely replaced with fringe material. Kolbasz (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

It makes claims regarding medical efficacy. Sources accordingly need to comply with WP:MEDRS. I suspect that they don't - and most of the sources cited seem to date to that 1990s. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Could try a WP:PROD if you think it's appropriate. Looie496 (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we should begin with a clean-up. Let's remove any source that cannot be verified or makes a MED claim and appears to be obsolete, and then we will see if the stub is worth preserving. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

First cleanup done, would anybody else like to wade in? There's not much left. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It's getting reverted by a SPA that recently created another duplicate, Vibroacoustic Therapy. I saw it at NPP and may have blanked the wrong one; honestly it's such a mess I do not have time to approach it tonight. VQuakr (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, now we have real problem here. I was just going to suggest that AfD might be a better option, as it means a re-creation can be tagged WP:G4. Which is still what I would suggest. Vibroacoustic stimulation is simply a test of fetal health used in evidence-based medicine. It's now been page-moved to Vibroacoustic therapy, the reason why we're here. I'll try restoring Vibroacoustic stimulation without using the sysop buttons, though I suspect there might be cut-and-past move problems. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks OK to me now - two distinct articles with no page history issues or WP:CUTPASTE problems.

• Vibroacoustic stimulation
• Vibroacoustic therapy

--Shirt58 (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

My clean-ups from last night were reverted by User:Cyrinus, he's added back all the rubbish sources as well. What's the best action now? --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Better suggestion - you understand the topic first. It is not a fringe theory... FDA approved the claims... They teach your so called fringe theory in university under music therapy... Salim do not get confused and confuse others -- vibroacoustic stimulation is not fetal vibroacoustic stimulation or FHR... It is simple as providing stimulation using sound frequency - not falls under medicine (remember there is a huge theory about vibroacoustic stimulation applied to building too)... how can you coin that major word to OBS - Fetal stuff in medical field? and do not call it rubbish - if you do not understand... You are irritating a lot of vibroacoustic therapists... VAT and VAS are in use - especially in scandinavian countries from late 1960's Cyrinus (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• From a quick look there are certainly (at least) many very poorly-sourced medical claims in the VAT article. These need to go: biomedical claims should abide by WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn 13:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Please also note Cymatic therapy and Energy medicine (which is where Vibrational medicine redirects). We may have a better opportunity to merge some information. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Cyrinus (talk · contribs) - please try to write in coherent sentences. Can you point to any published peer-reviewed double blind placebo-controlled experiments that show efficacy of this treatment that is better than placebo? My assessment as a non-expert is that there could be something in this that might take this out of the sphere of "alternative medicine" and into evidence-based medicine. Have any of these studies been repeated on a larger scale? There is a purportive physical cause and effect mechanism, and the claimed effects seem not to be extraordinary. However, because of the oxymoronic nonsense that is "alternative medicine", I hope you understand that we have to be careful about medical "treatments" that throw up any WP:REDFLAGs. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Cyrinus (talk · contribs) at the risk of having to order up very obscure and out of date medical references, could you kindly point us to two sources which can attest to the notability of this subject, are online and meet the criteria of WP:MEDRS. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This should be taken to AFD. I could not find any high quality MEDRS discussing this (as opposed to vibroacoustic stimulation, which does have information about it, and is a completely different topic). Yobol (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I concur. FYI to Cyrinus (talk · contribs) - the easiest way to overturn AFD (articles for deletion) proposal is to simply show good quality sources. As somebody with an interest in this topic you ought to be able to show something which can easily be verified and shows beyond doubt that this article is notable. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be a more basic COI SPAM problem, with the editor repeatedly inserting spam links to his own website. Amazing how many people have never heard of the Streisand effect! LeadSongDog come howl! 16:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

funny now it is spam. At least one person understand cymatics and energy medicine. vibraoacoustic is similar to pulsed electromagnetic field therapy - only difference - pure sound wave is used instead of magnetic wave. we had many issues when people introduced unltrasound - same problem here. Barney: I can do that barney - placbo controlled experiments are enough to show efficacy of any treatment form? then why doctors are killing cancer patients? why your oxymoronic doctors are creating integrative medicine? Dr OZ explain this even a moron can understand. Many morons wrote similar comments when they introduced ultrasound too. you do not even understand where main stream evidence based medicine is going. Yes I can provide many references and research - even clinics that are using it now. vibroacoustic stimulation you mentioned has a wrong definition on your wiki page. it talks about fetal vibroacoustic stimulation. Cyrinus (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Cyrinus (talk · contribs) - if you have the studies then give us the reference for them so we can look them up. I asked you to write in coherent sentences. "Barney: I can do that barney - placbo controlled experiments are enough to show efficacy of any treatment form? then why doctors are killing cancer patients?" is not a question, but a statement with a question mark. The gold standard is evidence-based medicine; we need that evidence. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• We are not talking about medicine. We are taking about vibroacoustic therapy. There are many studies - I post a few links here. Go and read it.

http://rettcenter.se/en/rettsyndrome/treatment/music.htm http://www.thesoundtherapycentre.com/fibromyalgia-study.html We are talking about a therapy form - not evidence based medicine. how did wiki approved pemf?Cyrinus (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Cyrinus, if you are incapable of understanding that 'medical treatment' refers to more than 'medicine' despite being repeatedly told to read WP:MEDRS, I have to ask whether you lack the necessary linguistic skills to edit the English-language Misplaced Pages. The policy applies just as much to a therapy using sound as it does to pills or potions - what matters is whether the sources are claiming medical efficacy, not what form the treatment takes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

@Cyrinus (talk · contribs), it's probably worth explaining that the Medical Reliable Sources Policy is intended to be read broadly and includes just about any therapeutic or health-giving claim. Misplaced Pages requires somewhat higher standards of verification for these kinds of articles than for others, hence please understand that our criticism is not intended to disparage your field of interest. We are merely pointing out that the sources we have seen to date do not come up to the required standard. As I previously stated, the best solution to this problem is to go and find better sources. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Links that may help to verify Vibroacoustic Therapy

• Fibromyalgia Study: http://www.thesoundtherapycentre.com/fibromyalgia-study.html
• Rett Syndrom: http://rettcenter.se/en/rettsyndrome/treatment/music.htm
• Vibrac Center: http://www.vibrac.fi/tagit/vibrac-centre

Cyrinus (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

All of these sources appear to be Self-published or sourced to non-accredited research organizations. At best we could use these sources to clarify what proponents of VAT have claimed, but they do not give us anything which clears the hurdle of the Medical Reliable Sources policy.

The first link (Fibromyalgia study) is a small non-blinded study which appears to be hosted on the website of a private clinic which offers this service. It's precisely the kind of source that the policy advises us to not use to back up biomedical claims.

Many of the same concerns hold true for the second link: It's a single page on a website for Rett Syndrome carers. The page is mostly a compilation of references to other studies, plus some comments about VAT and Music Therapy, written by a music therapist. It's not actually saying all that much beyond the opinion of the author that VAT is a good thing.

The third link appears to be some kind of blog run on behalf of an individual or organization who is promoting VAT. As such it's clearly not much use as a WP:MEDRS.

I'd say that if these really are the highest quality sources available to us then we are definitely looking at an WP:AFD nomination. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• It is an individual opinion of a person who cannot read. Just for example on the first link - "The role of Low Frequency Sound Therapy (VAT) in the treatment of patients with Fibromyalgia" has been a clinical study in collaboration with Dr. Heidi Ahonen, Professor of Music Therapy from Wilfrid Laurier University, Director of Manfred and Penny Conrad Institute for Music Therapy Research (CIMTR) and Dr. Lee Bartel, Professor, Associate Dean-Research at the University of Toronto, director of Canadian Music Education Research Centre (CMRC)". Those collaboraing universities are not private clinics. Very credible universities. Those sources are provided for you to do your own research. Same goes to other links provided. More than enough to validate that VAT is not Fringe theory. Do not twist and turn and manipulate the fact for you own narrow thinking or hidden agenda. Do the research. VAT exists from 1960s. The whole world know the inventor Olav Skille's work. Because of these Salim characters wiki is losing credibility and supporting funds. Cyrinus (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Salim - needs deleting. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Cyrinus, what matters isn't where the people are employed or what their titles are but where the work is published. They can be employed by the most prestigious university in the world or the least - what matters is the reliability of the publication. Kolbasz (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The sources cited in the article are copied verbatim from this page -- looks like stuff taken out of context in an attempt to support the pseudoscientific claims of "vibro acoustics". LuckyLouie (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Article now at WP:AfD here. (My apologies to Kolbasz, Salimfadhley, and VQuakr for my comments above that might appear to be snarky.) --Shirt58 (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

"Contemporary Vibroacoustic Therapy: Perspectives on Clinical Practice, Research, and Training Marko Pukanen and Esa Ala-Ruona. Music and Medicine 2012 4:128,originally published online 17 May 2012"

• Abstract

Vibroacoustic therapy (VAT) traditionally considered to be a physical and receptive type of music therapy intervention, uses pulsed, sinusoidal, low-frequency sound on a specially designed bed or chair. Today VAT is viewed as a multimodal approach, whereby the therapist works with the client’s physiological and psychological experiences, incorporating a mind–body approach. This article provides current knowledge in clinical practice emphasizing the systematic and documented implementations of VAT. This includes presentation and explication of the key elements of VAT, assessments, treatment plans and procedures, documentation, and evaluation of the treatment with recommendations for follow-up care in health and rehabilitation. Recent research is presented, and directions for future research are considered. Applicable views on clinical training and required competencies are outlined. Cyrinus (talk) 12:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

"Vibroacoustic therapy (VAT) traditionally considered to be a physical and receptive type of music therapy intervention", I think a brief mention of VAT on the Music Therapy article should be sufficient. I do not believe the sources we have today justify an entire article dedicated to the subject. The field appears to be inseparable from Music Therapy in that many of it's practitioners, founders, modalities and apparatus are exactly the same! --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• it is not music therapy. it is pure sound frequency. a form of sound therapy but similar to pemf because we use pulsed sound frequencies applied directly to the body (where in Binaural or Isochronic frequencies applied through ears). Hope this helps to understand the vibroacoustic therapy. -- Cyrinus (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Cymatic therapy

Cymatic therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) appears to be almost exactly the same thing as Vibroacoustic therapy but invented by a British Guy in the 1960s. Coincidentally it also has an AFD active right now. Please visit Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cymatic therapy (2nd nomination). --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes - because wiki editors and admins could not understand sound therapy, music therapy, vibroacoustic therapy, physioacoustic therapy - practiced in many countries as allied health profession. FDA approved for medical claims - Degree level education up to doctor grade available in universities in Finland and Canada, but AFD activted and vandalized by wiki meta puppets, including you... Shame. Cyrinus (talk) 06:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Your inability or unwillingness to work within the Misplaced Pages community's rules is the only source of shame here. LeadSongDog come howl! 07:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Cyrinus, you appear to not wish to engage with the game-rules here at Misplaced Pages. Did you know that there are other Wikis which might have rules which are more to your liking. Unfortunately, here at Misplaced Pages what counts as a medically reliable source is somewhat narrowly defined. FDA Approvals, degree level education and having a bunch of doctors practicing something in a few countries count for nothing. I humbly suggest that Conservapedia would probably have no objection to the kinds of edits you have been making recently. It is an excellent site for WP:TRUTH seekers such as yourself. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Cutler protocol

Fringe medical "protocol" for supposed mercury poisoning treatment. AfD candidate? Yobol (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The article makes no real claims to notability, and seems more like a 'how to' than an encyclopedic entry. It clearly fails to follow WP:MEDRS. Even if it isn't fringe, it certainly doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages as it stands. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is going to survive AFD, as there are a lot of references (not necessarily using the exact phrase however) in alt-med literature. However the current presentation as a normal medical treatment is unacceptable. Mangoe (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I've added some tags to this article. I think it ought to be merged into chelation therapy since this is nothing more than a minor protocol within a somewhat better known therapy. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

@Mangoe:I don't see such references, could you please cite? All the article has are Cutler's own book and some deletion-worthy commercial anti-amalgam blogsites.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Not references in the article, but references in alt-med books. I have not been able to find skeptical discussion of his ideas, and it does seem to me that merger into the main chelation therapy article is a reasonable resolution. Mangoe (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

After further discussion I'm not so sure this needs specific mention in the main therapy article. Mangoe (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Mercury_poisoning#Treatment

Is chelation therapy is a fringe treatment or a legitimate treatment for mercury poisoning. Could anybody more familiar with this topic kindly review this section? --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Every non-woo medicine site specifies chelation as a treatment, e.g. this page from the NYU Langone Medical Center Department of Pediatrics. Mangoe (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Chelation is a perfectly legitimate treatment for heavy metal poisoning (see e.g. Kosnett, Michael J (2013). "The Role of Chelation in the Treatment of Arsenic and Mercury Poisoning". Journal of Medical Toxicology. 9 (4): 347–354. doi:10.1007/s13181-013-0344-5. ISSN 1556-9039.). What's fringe is using it when there is in fact no dangerous heavy metal overload - i.e. for "detoxing" or to treat autism. Kolbasz (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Re its (mis)use for autism spectrum disorders, doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2012.06.005 or here pertains.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Tumor Treating Fields

Could someone with medical expertise please take a look at Tumor Treating Fields? To my layman's eye, it looks a lot like a Rife Machine.

Here are some links that may be of interest:

https://www.bcbsal.org/providers/policies/final/536.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/canjclin.44.2.115/pdf

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=573260

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

See also the closely-linked Novocure article. Alexbrn 21:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Tumor-treating fields are actually a legitimate (albeit highly investigational and experimental) area of scientific inquiry. Promoters of fraudulent Rife machines have tried to jump on the bandwagon, but these are very different approaches. To my knowledge, no serious, reputable source conflates TTF with Rife machines or Rife's claims. Novocure recently received FDA approval for a TTF device, to be used for patients with a highly aggressive malignancy (glioblastoma multiforme) after all other options have been exhausted.

Of note, the device's approval was controversial within the FDA (), in part because the key clinical trial submitted by the manufacturer failed to show any benefit of TTF over standard medical care. (The trial had several other substantial methodologic flaws as well, which are probably beyond the scope of this noticeboard). Interestingly, with longer follow-up there was a suggestion that survival was actually better with standard care than with TTF (see Fig. 2 here). Nonetheless, the device was approved because relapsed gliobastoma is a highly lethal condition where even the best standard therapies are highly unsatisfactory. In that setting, and given the evident safety of TTF, the device was approved as a "last resort" with a rationale that boils down to what's-the-harm?

While it's fairly unusual for a device to be approved on the basis of a single clinical trial—especially a clinical trial which failed to show superiority to standard care—there is another randomized Phase III trial underway which will hopefully clarify the value of this approach. MastCell  22:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ayurveda in America

Created 2 days ago as one large edit. Dougweller (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I think there's some material there which might be used in an article on how ayurveda has gotten "new-age-icized" but the title is a problem, at minimum. Mangoe (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

True, but I also mentioned to say created as one large edit, citation style correct, wikilinks, layout, all good as a new editor's first edit. Ring any bells? Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Mangoe makes a very good point about how there might be something in there which could serve a different purpose, but not as Ayurveda in America. The markup wasn't perfect at the first attempt. The article creator is probably not new, but there are lots of editors who pop up to create a single detailed article; I don't remember any others in this general topic area although there are a couple of similarities to Phantom919 (talk · contribs) (maybe just a coincidence) bobrayner (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It reads like a translation. Alexbrn 06:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Petitioning Jimmy Wales

May be of (mild) interest to this NB. Alexbrn 20:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

What the author of the "petition" does not realize is that Jimbo does not set policy. The community as a whole does that. Blueboar (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit that I find the doublethink in these sorts of petitions more than a little odd. "I pledge not to donate to your fundraising efforts until these changes have been made." In other words, "You can't have our money until you change Misplaced Pages to reflect our preferred version of The Truth"...which, incidentally, is very hard to distinguish in principle from the bribe-taking so many fringe believers accuse us of with respect to Big Pharma. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Appeals for a change in policy accompanied by financial inducements are likely to be treated with the contempt they deserve. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

These butthurt natureopaths, accupuncturists and merchants of woo-woo should just fork all of wikipedia and make their own site where they can preach their holistic gospel entirely unmolested by nasty sceptical type people. Failing that the TRUTHers should have a go at submitting their article to Conservapedia instead. I feel that might sufficient to educate most people as to the consequences of rampant POV editing. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

There's always Wiki4CAM. Alexbrn 06:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Wiki4CAM isn't going anywhere fast. bobrayner (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to do a short feature for The Pod Delusion about this. I'd appreciate any comments you might have . Thanks! --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Wiki4Cam went a bit further than asking skeptics not to edit articles - it got locked down completely, simply because there was no other way to ensure that edits fit the owner's perspective. That kind of lockdown is a good way to kill a wiki. There are various other alt-med sites which struggle with similar problems; it may not be helpful to focus on that one, and I'd be amazed if there weren't more forks of en.wikipedia devoted to alt-med. One well-known alt-med organisation in Europe tried operating a forum for a while, and after I got into the habit of replying to each forum post with a comment concerning evidence, they suddenly and silently took the forum offline. bobrayner (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, I never attempted to edit an article in Wiki4Cam, however it did occur to me that I could simply invent an utterly fictional modality and their policy would actually prevent any evidence-based challenges to my point of view. The implication is that without policies such as Misplaced Pages has it's impossible to build a community. The one exception may be Conservapedia which is fuelled by rage against the dang libruls who write all their software for free! --Salimfadhley (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe that happened, and for some time there was an article on "Tree therapy". Alexbrn 06:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Things heating up at water memory

There's an AN/I issue now about how Brian Josephson (yes, User:Brian Josephson) is acting out his COI in this article. It's probably sorted but just in case. Mangoe (talk) 04:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Animal models of autism and today's DYK hooks

A statement in Animal models of autism refers to a primary study that purported to show a thimerosal-autism connection (my edits after noticing the issue: , ). This (non-MEDRS-compliant) statement is the basis for one of today's DYK hooks. I'm not sure if there is a proper procedure for this, but I have reported it to DYK . Sunrise (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I have mentioned this at WT:MED, where the recent appearance of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the thimerosal controversy has also been raised. Alexbrn 10:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)‎

Update: the hook is no longer on the main page. It rotated off before anything could be done - see . Also, it looks like the editor responsible for the DYK main contributor to the DYK article has been adding primary studies to Thimerosal controversy. Sunrise (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Second update: the article itself was viewed nearly 2,000 times yesterday alone, presumably almost all of which came from the main page hook. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 02:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hunbatz Men

Fringe. He started studying to become a Mayan shaman when he was one, links Mayan and English, "says ancient Maya thought suggested their ancestors came from space." although Atlantis and Lemuria come in somewhere as well. There's more just as loony. Dougweller (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Notability isn't shown and there are few to no independent sources in this BLP. If you look at the article's creator, it seems that this is part of a big student project, in good faith I think, but needing more supervision. User:Hoopes is the professor leading the scheme, and you've already interacted with him about this, Doug, on his user page. So perhaps you should go back to him. WP:AUTHOR criteria don't seem to be met. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree! Normally I'd PROD an article of this quality, but I'm inclined to AGF in this case. We might benefit more by providing some constructive feedback to the original author. I'm not sure what the foundation of Mr Men's notability is, he seems like a very ordinary kind of fringe theory proponent. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting back to John. Daykeeper is a minor article related to Men. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

And maybe in response to my posting about him, we have a new editor adding him and other fringe stuff to various articles, Manuel chuenquitze (talk · contribs) also editing as 165.234.104.5 (talk · contribs). John Hoopes agrees there isn't much critical material on him (I find 2 brief mentions just reporting what he is doing). Dougweller (talk) 08:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hun B'atz and many alike link different religion and cultures of the world together, that is key for the misunderstanding of a "ex-conquered" people (natives). Well everything is in space, but a special place of origins as a group or unit would be the legendary Tollan and "old Aztlan" ("Lemuria and Atlanttis"). its all looney but myth makes learning fun for the children to know and learn the hiding messages and history in them (codice). like Jack and Jill or Paul Bunyan for example or not?. "We" believe that all "Amerindian" are nobility, its just lost and scattered. When the "great pandemic" came to the "new world" 10 million out of 100 million would survive. Cultural heroes would take many or had many wives and spread there genetics into the new lineage of "Indian pheasant" and Meztizo's (Métis). Those who have the knowledge pass down from a direct elder or decent is a privilege, also access to Mayan script and text is also a privilege, not alot of people go looking for it though. Therefore this makes some new age Mayan Elders unique. In Elder B'atz defense he is from Merida Yucatan, where the Maya Itza where divided into two dynasties (Xiu and Cocoom/Ko'woj) at the time of Hunac Ceel's Rebellion in the 1470's a.d. where some Itza migrated to Lake Peten (Tayasal). I hope this is applicable to any optimistic ideas about "Mayan hypothesis" and Mayan history or your own. Well being, Inlakech. Manuel chuenquitz (talk) 08:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

AIDS denialism in John Maddox bio

There's an unexplained passage in this bio about a 1983 article Maddox wrote which expressed some doubt about the AIDS viral hypothesis. This article seems to be a favorite of AIDS denialists looking for scientific support for their theses. I gather that Maddox's views evolved but I'm not doing so well in finding good documentation of this. Any help in fleshing out the section would be appreciated, especially someone who has access to Nature on-line. Mangoe (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

How about these?

• Where the AIDS Virus Hides Away: "Duesberg, having led many people with AIDS on a seductive path, should now admit the likelihood that he is mistaken."
• Has Duesberg a right of reply? (in the context of refusing Duesberg publication space in Nature): "The truth is that a person's "right of reply" may conflict with a journal's obligations to its readers to provide them with authentic information...When he offers a text for publication that can be authenticated, it will if possible be published - not least in the hope and expectation that his next offering will be an admission of recent error."

More at this Pubmed search. You can trace the evolution of his views as you go further down the list. :-) Sunrise (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, the 1983 article was quote-mined, which I have fixed (I will leave the rest to others). Sunrise (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to find some material which isn't behind Nature's firewall? I could find a library around here which has the back issues but it would also be useful to have a source that was completely independent of Maddox, notwithstanding the problem that his editorials are really a primary source anyway. Mangoe (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't they be sufficient to describe his own views? That said, Google Books turns up this result by Nicoli Nattrass, which describes the context of some of the editorials. As above, this is mainly about Maddox's views towards Duesberg, but I think it's clear that they don't agree (e.g. "Maddox became infuriated ") TBH I think the change of viewpoint is too obvious to be stated directly - there wasn't any scientific consensus on the question when he wrote the editorial (HIV hadn't even been isolated yet), and like most everyone else his viewpoint responded to the evidence as it became available. Sunrise (talk) 07:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

My problem with the Nature articles is their relative inaccessibility. That said, I appreciate your submission. I also note a certain consistency across his obituaries in various publications which I intend to use as a template for clean up. Mangoe (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It would be good if more of Nature's content were freely available, but it's eminently citable. The main problem is not what Maddox said but when he said it: any opinion ventured on AIDS much before the mid-80s was speculation, and the scientific community treats it as such unless subsequently confirmed. It doesn't surprise me that the Duesbergites cite this, they are scientifically ignorable even if they are a public health menace. I would say that it should be covered only in the context of the misrepresentation by AIDS denialists; on its own the comment is obiter dictum and of no real significance. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I've got access to Nature back to 1997 so anyone is welcome to ask me for articles regarding this. I've also asked at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request if anyone has access to the 1983 article. Gamaliel (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Some things that seemed relevant: Gamaliel (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• "he was also fearless in taking on what he held to be irresponsible reporting, as when he roundly defeated The Sunday Times in its espousal of a misguided and socially dangerous theory of the causation of AIDS." Walter Gratzer "John Maddox (1925–2009)" 458, 983-984 (2009) doi:10.1038/458983a
• "He truly believed that those casting doubt on links between HIV and AIDS were scientifically pernicious, and campaigned accordingly" Philip Campbell "Maddox by his successor" 17 April 2009 | 458, 985-986 (2009) | doi:10.1038/458985a

Here is the 1983 article. Gamaliel (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to be a party-pooper, but... is that a link to copyvio? bobrayner (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

It is a temporary link to a legally obtained article shared for educational purposes. Gamaliel (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos

Hi everyone. I think I am on the right track at Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos but I could use a few more eyes everyone. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be a WP:POVFORK of the article The Perth Group. Not sure Papadopulos-Eleopulos is notable, and the present bio looks like it's being used as a WP:COATRACK. LuckyLouie (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering on the same lines, but on balance because of the importance of the group in relation to South African government policy, perhaps this can stay separate. If it's to stay, it's a BLP, and would be worked up as a biography. It certainly doesn't advocate for the subject's views, well done for that, especially well done for keeping out the totally irrelevant views of Camille Paglia. It would need more on the subject's education, career and writings. For biographies, it's not so much "what does s/he think?' but "what has s/he done?". Itsmejudith (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The Papadopulos-Eleopulos article isn't a POVFORK - it doesn't reflect a POV different from the Perth Group article, and it was in fact created prior to that article. That Paglia's views are irrelevant has been several times asserted, but never demonstrated. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree with LuckyLouie this is POVFORK about an individual who is notable only as a member of The Perth Group DUEWEIGHT is given in the article on that group. I see no substantiation of notability for Papadopulos-Eleopulos that warrants a BLP. Is there any coverage of this person that reflects importance outside of activities undertaken as a member of the denialist group? Regardless of the time of creation of the article the notability of the subject needs to be established. The importance of the group does not support the notability of the subject. A review of the content of the article shows nothing outside of the subjects activities and views as a member of The Perth Group. There is no evidence that outside of this group (and largely even within it) that this person's views and actions are notable. An uncredentialed fringe activist with a couple of publications who was rejected as a witness in a court case is not a notable subject for a WP article. This article should be tagged for deletion unless some RS' provide notablity. MrBill3 (talk) 06:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should actually read WP:POVFORK? "POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages policies." That wasn't what happened here. The Papadopulos-Eleopulos article isn't a POVFORK. As for notability, Papadopulos-Eleopulos has influenced government policy in South Africa and played a role in high-profile legal cases, so it seems more than reasonable to consider her notable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

FORK or RACK, it's emphasizing material better suited to the main article. Someone's BLP isn't the place to to rehash the Perth Group's views on AIDS, a judge's trial ruling regarding the Perth Group, and the lack of credentials of its members. LuckyLouie (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Could somebody AfD this article please. The notability discussion seems more appropriate for AfD.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, an AfD is merited. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos open for business. Alexbrn 08:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

No need for AfD IMO, smerge and redirect citing WP:BLP1E (with "event" interpreted slightly creatively) was the right answer - this person is not notable other than as an advocate of the Perth Group's ridiculous AIDS-denialist bullshit; if we have an article on her we'd necessarily spend omst of it simply repeating content from the Perth group article. Guy (Help!) 20:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Leuren Moret

I'm taking this to AfD again. Absolutely nothing to show the subject meets GNG, and the views are very definitely fringe. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Biocentric universe and Robert Lanza

• Biocentric universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Robert Lanza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I came across this little area of quantum woo on Sixty Symbols . I'd like some help in trying to contextualize, sanitize, and organize these two related articles. I'm not even sure the first one deserves an article, so work away and see what you think.

jps (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

When is a myth not a myth

Creationist advocacy has prevented the article on the creation myth in genesis from being named a creation myth in the article title for years. I would like to remedy that:

Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Requested move.

Your input would be appreciated, especially considering that there are likely to be creationist advocates who will show up to complain.

jps (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

More evidence that this is a canvassing board where neutral language is not at all required. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

List of scientists who disagree with science

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the thimerosal controversy.

This list is an embarrassment. Obviously a knock-off of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming which also deserves deleting.

jps (talk) 03:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution