Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:32, 20 January 2008

Statements of support and good wishes

I wish you wouldn't leave, Joshua. You are one of the ten smartest people at Misplaced Pages. I respect your right to vanish, however, and I wish you well if that's what you want. If you ever want to get together for a cup of coffee and a bagel in the Upper West Side, drop me a line.

All the best. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Say what, you're vanishing again? I regret your right to vanish; the tens of thousands of people who somehow take WP and its commercial scrapes as providing reliable information need more defenders against silliness and fraud. -- Hoary (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I support the endevour of SA, but I wish he was a bit more timid. One important aspect of debunking is to actually cull all the myths about a subject first, and then inform about what is actually known about it. I also love to learn about myths, but CSI and friends are not good sources if you want to learn about the cutting edge of a subject. And most of the objections that skeptics raised are well known in the field already; you are your best critic after all. There IS a lot of fraud in the field, booksellers, morons, etc; and I support the job to seperate these from the science of the subject. However a priori motivations just doesn't cut it. The old pals in CSI also hated these. But the new generation of skeptics are just booksellers just as the UFO crowd. I hope SA keeps on finding good sources on stuff, because it is good. So I hope we can actually cooperate in the future instead of fighting over each others different POV. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, found a paper from my fave, A Plea for Pluralism in Philosophy and Physics Arne Næss - He is showing how unified science or consensus science is problematic and suggests pluralism instead. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 07:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

This is to inform you that you have been included as a party in a request for Arbitration here ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello ScienceApologist. It is really a sad thing that you retired from Misplaced Pages. Your contributions will be remembered. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:HOPE

Policy proposal: WP:HOPE. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages needs you

In an exchange with Benjaminbruheim, I told him that CSICOPers were my personal saviors :)

In your user page list I would add JFK conspiracy theories, such as those debunked in Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History. JFK conspiracy theories also belong to your category "Conspiracy theorist claims of suppression of true-science".

And I would add also Scientology-related articles to your category "Religious-based explanation of observable events".

WP really needs editors like you...

—Cesar Tort 18:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't take the bait of assumptions of bad faith

I've seen a lot of editors make bad faith assumptions of others, mostly as a method of baiting and gaming the system. I recommend you get a third party involved when this happens, or at least make a mental note that they're acting from the perspective of assuming bad faith on your part. They're just trying to escalate conflicts, making the conflicts personal, to create an excuse for their own incivility. Best to keep cool and calm. --Ronz (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Crohn's disease

I don't know if you work articles like this but if you know anything about Crohn's I would appreciate some help in making this article readable for the everyday person. Right now the article is ok but the problem I am having is how to make it less medical, it was originally written by a GI, at least that's my understanding.

I've been trying to work on it occasionally but with flare ups and so forth, I get delayed because I am usually unable to focus well enough to keep thoughts in my head with my meds. Anyways, if you can think of a way to keep the article with the knowledge in it but make it user friendlier I would appreciate it. I've been trying to get people interested in the Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IBD) article because to be honest I feel it' important to get people to understand these diseases. Knowing about an incurable disease gives empowerment and I guess this is basically what I want this article to do, explain how Crohn's disease is a life altering disease. If you don't know or you are not interested, don't worry about it. I understand if you are too busy (with Wiki and real life). I am just asking incase maybe you are interested in an article like this. --CrohnieGal 23:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to take a look at it tomorrow. A little to much meds for serious thinking right now. ;) Plus it's time for bed! You are the type of person though that I want this article to reach out to, so you know about this disease and what people go through, esp. the little people. I am talking about little people who are born to the monster or get diagnosed at such an early age that they don't understand. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal 00:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Heads up again

You are being discussed here. Cardamon (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Don't you think it would be a good idea to ask other editors if homeopathy references belong in some of these articles? To not collaborate and claim wp:weight and wp:fringe in an attempt to mass delete homeopathic entries is a POV edit. Some of these herbs are better known for their homeopathic use and in a few cases you have deleted only one sentence in attempt to withhold information to readers and push you "skeptic" agenda forward. Before you continue deleting, discuss. Thank you. --travisthurston+ 18:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors attempt to make the claim that Homeopathy works. Utilizing articles that are not reliable and do not in fact show anything, should not be used. OrangeMarlin 18:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

One might say that the act of editing, in itself, invites collaboration and provokes thought. Antelan 18:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think each disputed piece of text should be joined with up to date science on the subject instead of outright removal. Perhaps that a lot of mentions are un-notable, the WEIGHT does not warrant out right removal just because it is non-mainstream, but reduction of mention. This way the text will be more informal and verifiable. I would love success stories about this as well. I agree with all three above, and I hope not the edits will remove verifiable material. But if this is done right, and SA rather updates than removes it can be very good. The alternative are noise because editors who are knowledgable feels notable aspects are removed. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am also concerned about removing what are usually very brief mentions of homeopathy from these articles. I would interpret the policies you are citing to say that the homeopathic uses should not be given undue prominence and that the articles shouldn't imply that they work, however, simply briefly mentioning a verifiable piece of information seems entirely acceptable. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

But what was the rationale for removing the mention of homeopathy from the Aconitum napellus article, but leaving the traditional Chinese medicine? Or similarly, leaving that excremental section on herbal medicine in Calendula officinalis, but only removing the homeopathy? I'm puzzled about why you are applying this so selectively. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I hate bickering and am hesitant to weigh in on this subject but here goes. A statement like "x is used as a homeopathic remedy." seems to me a statement of fact. It says nothing at all about whether or not it's effective. If an editor is worried about wp:weight then just add a statement like "There is no evidence of it's efficacy". As far as wp:fringe goes, Homeopathy may be stupid and untrue, or may actualy be a kind a faith healing, or whatever and not science. But I can't see why that means there should be no mention of it. That would be like talking about Columbus and not at least mentioning "flat earth". Even with the debate raging over at Homeopathy no one is argueing a total ban on the topic. A scientist must realise that any theory should be open to change or even rejection after a period of acceptance. It seems fundamentaly unscientific to quash all discusion on a topic. That's more of a religious tactic.Darrell Wheeler (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

heh. I thought you retired. You just decide to act as a force of one. "Uses" is relevant to the article whether you like the uses or not. Mayby it comes down to whether or not you take a "proscriptivist" or "descriptivist" view of wikipedia. I try to assume good faith but seriously. get over yourself.Darrell Wheeler (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I noticed your comments on Tim's Talk page ("Deleting homeopathy from mainstream articles") and thought I'd offer my two cents, although I'm probably going to regret this :) You mean the final product does not verifiably contain , right? ;) Wasn't the plant/whatever material used in some stage of preparation? FWIW, I do think such mentions are relevant and harmless, and I don't think this constitutes advertising of homeopathy. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Please don't missunderstand me. I don't have a vested interest in either view point. As to my argument being specious. see comment above. also just as a note. Although the flat earth thing and Columbus is a myth it still merits mention in the article on Columbus. Good luck on your crusadeDarrell Wheeler (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hair of the Dog

Good spotting. Wow, I can't believe that article was so polluted. Nice job. Tparameter (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Bleep

The problem is that this is the rule for writing about films or books -- for anything contentious we find secondary sources, and we don't rely on our own descriptions and analysis if someone objects to them. If there aren't any sources who have covered these errors, they may have to stay uncovered, or perhaps could be dealt with in footnotes. I know this is a very contentious area, but people really don't like to see editors impose their own views of how a particular movie or book should be approached.

I only watched 20 minutes of the film myself, so I should probably get hold of it again and watch the rest before commenting (I had trouble getting through it, to be honest), but so far as I could tell, it's not about science at all. It's philosophy, although not in any kind of rigorous academic sense, and really very mixed up -- a Sophie's World written by a non-philosopher. So the criticism of it that it's not scientific is making a category mistake, in my view. Plus, all the ideas they talk about e.g. that what we regard as the external world is really just a series of perceptions; that there may be parallel universes; that the objects of knowledge can't be known independently of the observer etc -- these are very old, and very respectable, philosophical ideas. They're just not well-presented in Bleep. SlimVirgin 19:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if the film were all about "science" (and let's say all BS) our NOR policy would still demand that we find a verifiable secondary source that said either "All claims about science in this particular film are false" or "Some of the claims about science in this particular film are false" or "This — particular claim about science in this particular film is false" or something like that. It is not for Wikipedians to argue that the science in the film is false (regardless of whatever evidence we marshall to support our view) because we editors do not put our own views into articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That is precisely the type of claim (i.e., a well-sourced claim) that is written in the article, and that people are trying to keep out of the lead. Antelan 20:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There are two separate issues: N, and the lead. Let us keep them separate. SA, you wrote, "a myriad of sources which detail (nearly point-by-point) where the film misrepresents science from Physics Today to the American Chemical Society" - do these sources explicitly refer to the film, what the bleep do we know? if they do, I agree they are appropriate sources. On the second, separate matter of the introduction, I think as a rule introductions should not get into details. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(Am not SA but replying anyway.) Yes, the sources in question explicitly refer to the film. The proportion of this type of material (reviews, reception, criticism) in the lead seems appropriate (about 1/3 of the lead) relative to the amount of coverage in the article (about 1/2 the material). Antelan 23:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you SA, I appreciate your telling me. My suggestion is, review them extensively in an appropriate section in the body. When various editors can collaborate together to write an NPOV NOR compliant section in the body of the article - Misplaced Pages is a collaborative process! - when diverse editors reach a consensus about the section in the body, I think then is the time to work out a sentence to add to the intro that signals that there is controversy covered later in the article. look, there is no rush! Have the patience and good faith to take time to work out s extion in the body. i really believe that it will be easier to do this first. And I believe that once this is done, it will be easier to modify the intro second. One step at a time! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Stone Tape Theory

I dropped a comment on the talk page and will fix it up in a few days. Doesn't anyone watch X-Files? : ) --Nealparr 20:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE

See http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/623278/description#description

After you have had time to look it over, I will return the info you are working very hard to find a reason to exclude - for some reason; maybe in a day or two. Hard to work on the page with edit conflicts. Hardyplants (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You took the bait

You might want to consider refactoring this. Cardamon (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)