Misplaced Pages

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

Self-reporting does not make a reliable source, and sciencebasedmedicine.org is essentially a blog, definitely not a reliable source. It is a biased website with an agenda. His self-written bio page is especially unreliable for sourcing biographical information on Dr Gorski himself. I removed the two references to the blog, and facts that were solely sourced to it.

In other details, i have personal experience with Dr Gorski and that website, which although it cannot be added to the article, may be relevant as background information on his blog and the nature of his work. He banned me from commenting on his website, because i was citing research studies and making the case that there is a valid hypothesis that glyphosate may disrupt the human gut microbiome, which has not been tested sufficiently yet. I supported this statement with citations of research studies. He banned me from commenting very quickly and would not reinstate my ability to comment there. Therefore, there is a censorship bias in the comments to the blog, which i personally read as an agenda-driven pseudo-science blog, using the facade of rationalism to push an industry agenda. Therefore, i object to its use as a source to support any statement, especially any biomedical statement. SageRad (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Note that my edit has been reverted in this diff. I had removed statements that used Gorski's blog as a source, because i do not find it reliable. The statement and sourcing that i found problematic was that of biographical information about the person, and also this statement:

According to Gorski, in 2010 members of the anti-vaccine blog Age of Autism wrote to the board of directors at Wayne State University and asked that he be prevented from blogging.

I do not know anything about this allegation about "members of the anti-vaccine blog Age of Autism" and i find this statement with this sourcing to be problematic. It allows the blog to make a vague accusation, and then it is stated essentially as a fact in Misplaced Pages. Although the statement is attributed, its presence here is still problematic as it's echoing of a "he said / she said" personal accusation. Is there a reliable source for this information? And why is this relevant in this article anyway? What part of the story about this person is enhanced by this statement?

References

1. Gorski, David H. (18 June 2010). "The price of opposing medical pseudoscience". Science-Based Medicine. Retrieved 14 June 2013. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Well, i guess i don't really care. All it does anyway is to make it clear that the person is often enmeshed in some drama. SageRad (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, i haven't had any replies here, and i had the idea that if his blog is acceptable as a source about another group attempting to shut down a venue for speech, then it's also acceptable that a blog can source a counterpoint, that Dr Gorski has been known to ban people from commenting on his blog website "Science-Based Medicine" for presenting opposing viewpoints. SageRad (talk) 01:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I did so, and then it was removed for not being sourced, so i wrote a statement to that effect on my blog and i sourced it to that. I hope the irony is recognized. SageRad (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Referencing your own blog isn't going to get far, and I reverted your edit for a number of reasons. Your central question, though, why is the letter relevant, needs to be answered. Unless this was covered in other sources, it does not appear notable enough to mention. Was Age of Autism successful in getting the engagement canceled? Did AoA cover their letter on their own site? (and one side note for future reference - new talk page sections are typically added at the bottom of the page)Dialectric (talk) 05:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Dialectric. I cited my own blog statement to make the point that this is how the previous statement was sourced, and that it's substantially equivalent. I do wonder what the point of the inclusion of that statement in the article was, and i sense that it's probably a sort of propaganda to paint Gorski as a victim of attempted censorship. If that is relevant, then it seems relevant that he is a perpetrator of censorship as well, for he is. I am not lying in my statement that he banned me for presenting counter-evidence to his claims.

I will add new talk section on the bottom of pages from now on. Thanks. SageRad (talk) 11:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I actually think it may be relevant that a group tried to get his blogging stopped. I also think it's relevant that he claims to be a proponent of free speech and yet censors people from commenting in the forum for public commenting on his web-blog, based on whether their views oppose his own. I would call that hypocrisy. So i think that both are relevant. I can, of course, source the claim of his blocking people better. I can find a statement off of Misplaced Pages, in which several people testify that they were blocked by Gorski from commenting at "Science-Based Medicine" for discussing science. SageRad (talk) 11:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I have never seen Gorski stifle any legitimate scientific debate, though I have seen him shut down pseudoscientific claptrap such as loons promoting the refuted vaccine-autism link, other loons promoting child abuse under the guise of "autism biomed" and the like. XKCD 1357 applies. I have no idea what you wrote on SBM, or why you were banned, but the evidence I have seen in your edits leads me to believe that your judgment of the neutrality and scientific merit of your arguments is inaccurate. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

That's your version. I have seen a lot of people citing papers and making no sense whatsoever (Dana Ullman, for example). This, of course, is why we require reliable independent secondary sources for material of this kind. Guy (Help!) 06:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

At the very least this thread has been a learning experience. My interpretration of self-published was that it could be used to cite information about the "self" but not 3rd parties. My interpretation is confirmed here, but I must admit that it is not being applied with any consistency throughout WP because I've seen and edited articles where it was disallowed. --Atsme 09:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It largely depends on whether the information is controversial. If someone states that they are quitting their job because it requires them to fraudulently present global climate change as a reality, rather than being a fraud perpetrated by an evil cabal of green activists and climate scientists hungry for tenure, then we need independent sources to establish the context (otherwise we'd be representing an insane view without comment or correction). If, however, the statement is that cranks have tried to get an academic fired for promoting reality, then there's no real problem, the fact that cranks do this is well known and hardly controversial as a statement of fact (see Edzard Ernst's A Scientist In Wonderland for examples). Guy (Help!) 09:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Update

I have now taken the time to find out what SageRad is complaining about. Unsurprisingly, the "science" was actually anti-GMO activism, and the banning appears to have occurred only after he'd followed Gorski around numerous venues and refused to drop the stick. It was followed by the same behaviour from a number of apparent sockpuppets. The anti-GMO activism is consistent with SageRad's editing behaviour on Misplaced Pages. It is not uncommon for bloggers to block zealous agenda-driven posters whose agenda is only peripherally related to the purpose of the blog, and this is not controversial other than to those whose views are thus denied a prominent platform (that is, after all, the entire point of grandstanding).

It is not a surprise that no reliable sources have addressed this, because there is basically nothing to address. In an area where reasonable people can differ, it is very common for extreme partisans to become agitated when others refuse to accept their viewpoint as the sole valid view, and as far as I can tell that's exactly what happened here. I propose that we waste no further time on this. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

All of this section is very wrong, and also reflects some assumptions and detective work done against myself as a Misplaced Pages editor... and i do not think is admissible here. I think that this section is a violation of ethics of Misplaced Pages. I'm not going to get legalistic though. My saying it is enough.

For example, the use of the word "sock puppets" for people who care about things... that's really bad. The use of "science" in quotes demeans the use of actual science -- yes, science -- Jaworski (1972) for instance, which shows glyphosate inhibiting R japonicum by 80% at 10 uM concentration. This is science, not "science". Ernest Jaworski was a Monsanto scientist in the early development of the chemical.

As for calling me bad for "refusing to drop the stick" -- again, characterizing the dynamic as if i were the source of the problem and as if it's wrong to call out a tactic of banning a person and then commenting after they're banned to ridicule their arguments wrongly, when the person cannot respond to correct factual errors.

All this feels like inquisition-style tactics. All those who have a clear mind and two eyes should be able to see that. Those who are bought into a certain establishment self-limiting view of reality, though, may not see it. And no, i don't claim to know "the truth" -- but my mind is open to inquiry and i evaluate evidence, and i seek to lose bias in myself and to notice it in others.

This is getting to be like a "he said / she said" "yes you do! / no i don't!" thing. But that's the very thing i was trying to get OUT of Misplaced Pages by calling out the use of David Gorski's own blog to source a claim that he was a victim of attempted censorship. It's hypocrisy and self-asserted sourcing that doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages, for the same reasons people here don't want my claim in Misplaced Pages.

We need some other people without a stake in this, random people, to come in and take a broad view of the situation. We need some peer-review without bias here. And i'm really tired of being attacked like this and called names and accused of thoughtcrimes, etc. SageRad (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It is a fair comment, please calm down. Spumuq (talq) 11:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not uncalm, sir. And what comment are you referring to, and what reasoning makes you think that it's a fair comment, if it's the one i think you're referring to? Just saying "yes you are!" isn't much of an addition to a conversation. Honestly, i would rather be talking about hoes than getting name-called and insinuated upon all day long. SageRad (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Context. I think that any more of this and SageRad will be banned. We don't need this vendetta. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, there you go. Self-admission of David Gorski banning me from "Science-Based Medicine", from a source other than my own blog. Simple.

As for "vendetta", it's not that. It's exposure of censorship of an apparently public forum, his "Science-based Medicine" blog project which is featured so prominently in this article about him. Don't take his word at face value. Why should you, any more than you take mine? SageRad (talk) 11:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

What a pity you missed the salient point, which is that your characterisation of the reason for the ban is self-serving bullshit. Guy (Help!) 13:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that Jytdog is being harmfully legalistic to the point of flying against common sense in the application of a Misplaced Pages guideline in his disappearing of my brief comment on this talk page in this diff twice, after my explanation of my objection to its initial removal. This feels like a memory hole attempt and an edit war and a closing of dialogue space in a talk page. The guideline in question states "The purpose of a Misplaced Pages talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." This makes sense, of course. In this case, my "for the record" was a brief dissent to the content of the talk page header, and a brief provision of source material on the other topic discussed at length on this talk page. I don't see the issue. This is not using it as a platform, but a very brief provision of notes regarding the article project. i am not using this to grandstand. I wanted to leave the very basic "for the record" and be gone. The disappearance has made that difficult. Note that the header of the guideline in questions says specifically, "This page documents an English Misplaced Pages behavioral guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I have other things to do. I hope this can just rest. SageRad (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The matter will rest as soon as you stop grandstanding, other editors are happy to continue editing. Spumuq (talq) 13:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not "grandstanding". I put a final couple facts here, to deny allegations/wrong statements against me, and was going. People couldn't leave that alone. That's what kept it going. And here again you couldn't leave it alone. I'll be gone when there is no standing allegation against me to which i disagree. SageRad (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)