Talk:David Gorski: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 07:26, 30 May 2015 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,301,980 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:David Gorski/Archive 1) (bot← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:38, 30 May 2015 edit undoJzG (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,082 edits →Article reads like a resume or press release: per WP:BLP Next edit →
Line 15:		Line 15:
	{{connected contributor\|SageRad\|David Gorski\|declared=yes\|otherlinks= COI declared }}		{{connected contributor\|SageRad\|David Gorski\|declared=yes\|otherlinks= COI declared }}
	{{COI editnotice}}		{{COI editnotice}}


	== Article reads like a resume or press release ==

	It seems the notability issue has been sorted out: a number of secondary sources have been added and the notability tag has been removed. I agree with those actions and offer my thanks to all who helped with that process. On the other hand I think the removal of the Resume Tag was a bit premature and that there are still issues in that regard. ] has echoed some of my original concerns in at ]. I'm reprinting the relevant portion of DGG's comments in case they are useful to those editors who are currently working on the article.

	* ''The problem with the article, as mentioned is the degree to which it resembles a press release. I suppose the opposition is to some degree because of this. What we do in such cases is edit.''
	*''The section of "Skeptical advocacy" needs editing. First, the title, skeptical of what,? The criticism of what he dislikes are not clear, e.g.the totally meanigless sentence, "He has analyzed and commented on the ethics, methods and results of the study of alternative medicine" , but their significance is shown not by his own writings, but what others say about it.''
	*''There's too much repeat of '''Dr.'''--we do not do that.''
	*''There's too much notability-by-association with other famous people--we remove that also. it doesn't matter who also attended a meeting.''
	*''There's too many adjectives. No adjective of judgement can be used here without a specific third party cited source, preferably a quotation in context. e.g. "''in-depth'' analysis" Or "the use of ''proven'' therapies for diseases" -- even utter quacks think their remedies are "proven"''
	*''A judgment by someone is only meaningful if they are an authority--who is " David H Freedman that his opinion is meaningful?''
	*As some minor points:
	**''Gorski has been cited for his work" is ambiguous. If we're talking in academic terms, which paper got how many citations? if we're talking in in common parlance, it means he has been given a prize for it.''
	** ''we do not include the thesis title in the infobox'';
	** ''Is the "Advanced Clinical Research Award" a notable award? we usually call an award notable if its the highest level national honor, but what this seems to be is a research grant.''
	** ''if a book is being cited, especially for controversial information, a p. number is needed ("may have been responsible for the death of ...")''
	**''Too many of the references are not reliable sources, but are organizations associated with him of advocacy groups supporting his positions.''''
	*--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 17:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

	The article does lack the encyclopedic tone and conciseness appropriate for WP. I look forward to the contributions of ]. I am providing the information below to address the points made in this section and on BLP and to facilitate editing the article for improvement (the references are already in the article in citation format):

	*What Gorski is skeptical of (I have edited the section title to reflect this). These references are what others say about his skepticism. You will find more in the other references that follow:
	**Munger describes Gorski as having, “a passion for shredding medical myths” .
	**Page calls him a skeptic of Complimentary Alternative Medicine, saying he calls CAM techniques quackery, the article, Page also cites Science-Based Medicine blog as a source for findings on CAM .
	**Paulus and Feldman provide a detailed explanation of Gorski's criticism of “alternative methods for combating cancer and the oft-published testimonials from cancer survivors that that exploit emotions and twist facts.”
	**Shomon says, “David Gorski at Science-Based Medicine, for example, writes off all complementary and alternative medicine as "mystical New Age thinking" and "woo." “

	*Too much repeat of Dr.??? I do not see Dr. used in the article at all. Please explain this comment. It's presence in the references is in the titles of the references, I don't think it's WP policy to edit the title of references.

	*Notability-by-association one instance I see. A single instance may be characterized as unnecessary but “too much”? The members of a panel discussion have some relevance or importance, or maybe not. If someone feels strongly edit.

	*Too many adjectives, I have edited proven remedies. I think all the adjectives used (especially in depth analysis) are supported by the references listed below. Please provide specific examples of adjectives that need direct references.

	*"may have been responsible for the death of ..." actually appears in the article as "the use of alternative medicine as a possible contribution to the death of" this may be an unclear item. The possible contribution of... is the subject discussed by Gorski and others not an assertion of fact. Please read the references and provide a suggestion for how to make this more clear. This is the subject of a section in the 'Falacies' book in the references.

	*The judgement of someone... Who is David H Freedman that his opinion is meaningful. Are you claiming that Freedman has no authority or relevance? Shouldn't such an assertion be in some way supported? Freedman is a contributing editor at Inc. and a published author . What standard of authority is needed to validate or make important enough for inclusion in this article. His authority may not rise to that level but the question should be informed by at least cursory reseach.

	*Gorski has been cited for his work... I have edited the sentence to reflect the title of the article and the number of citations per PubMed. However the content of the paragraph contained specific examples of the citation and building upon that article which was a reference. Perhaps the research section could use some editing to explain Gorski's contribution in a more direct manner. I thought it provided a fairly clear technical explanation of the way his work has been used to increase the efficacy of chemo and radiation therapy and reducing side effects. Suggestions on how to explain this more clearly would be welcome. His other main (related) focus on modifying the genetic behavior of endothelial cells has also made a contribution that has continues to be built upon by his team and others. Suggestions of how to put this into an encyclopedic entry are very welcome. I look forward to the contributions of others that I might learn to write about medical research in WP appropriate style. I have added the article titles, citation numbers and sources.

	*The the thesis title in infobox. The template WP:Template:Infobox_Scientist clearly includes the thesis title parameter. What is the basis for stating “we do not include the thesis title in the infobox”?

	*The Advanced Clinical Research Award. As this award is not being used to establish notability it's inclusion is probably warranted. What criteria defines what awards are notable enough for inclusion in a BLP? It is a national level award. Details of the award can be found . Gorski is also the beneficiary of several highly selective national research grants. As these grants are awarded on an extremely limited basis subject to a highly competitive national selection process by the highest level of research evaluation should those grants be added to the article?

	*Page numbers for books. Some books are not paginated in their electronic form. Where available page numbers are given. For book references that do not give page numbers a search for “Gorski” will return the relevant sections.

	*References, this is a subject of some confusion for me. WP:RS clearly allows citations of self pub material to establish non controversial facts. WP:RS also makes clear that each citation be evaluated on it's individual merits. You will note several references are notable people with authority in the subject for which they are cited. That said '''the article clearly suffers from overcite. I apologize for my editing that has contributed to this. I welcome a careful and considered editing of the references'''. Some of my confusion stems from the desire to support the adjectives used and the more general statements made, please see below.

	*The criticism of the sentence, 'He has analyzed and commented on the ethics, methods and results of the study of alternative medicine.'
	This was meant to summarize his work as described by others. I am providing the material upon which I based that sentence in the hopes that someone can constructively edit the article to reflect the information below.

	*Ethics:
	**Page discusses (with Gorski) the ethical question of providing the best treatment vs providing the care the patient is interested in .
	**Khorana says, “A clinical trial, funded by the NIH/NCI, initiated in 1999 and reported now in an article epublished ahead of print in the JCO actually offered patients a control arm of "pancreatic enzymes, nutritional supplements, detoxification, and an organic diet" and no gemcitabine. I should preface this post by saying that I first read about this article on the website sciencebasedmedicine.org, in a blog post by Dr. David Gorski' .
	**Paulus and Feldman's article includes the assertion by Gorski that a patient who abandoned chemotherapy succumbed to “cancer en curasse, a horrible situation that we do not see anymore “ .

	*Analysis:
	**Taylor calls Gorski's blog on Job's death a, “graphic-heavy analysis” .
	*Khorana says, “Gorski who explains in detail and with just the right amount of indignation, the politics behind how such a study got funded. Here's a link to the post which deserves to be read in full.” .
	**Paulus and Feldman say, “Gorski applied a framework for analyzing cancer testimonies developed by an Australian oncologist” and “Using a medical prognosis calculator...” . (This seems to be analysis and I am not sure how to paraphrase more appropriately).
	**Salzberg suggests a newspaper writer who authored a piece on battlefield acupuncture, “should read Dr. David Gorski’s excellent article on battlefield acupuncture at Science-Based Medicine, in which Gorski dismantles the extremely thin evidence that Niemtzow claims supports his practices. It’s like using a boulder to kill a flea, but if you really want to see the “evidence,” take a look.” .

	*Methods:
	**Schneider, “David Gorski, writing in Science-Based Medicine, slammed the methods of one study...” .
	**Greek and Menache (in a journal article) use Gorski as an example of the need for a feasible mechanism to be a requirement for scientific review of a treatment ('I think that's an accurate paraphrase') .
	**Munger describes Gorski's analysis ('my word') of an acupuncture study thusly, “Yet, as Gorski points out in his post discussing the study, there was no difference in pain experienced between the two groups. So although brain activity was changed by acupuncture, the main concern of the patients—relief of pain—was not.
	Why was brain activity different? It’s hard to say what the mechanism for the difference was, but the key difference between these groups is that the real acupuncture group actually had needles puncturing their skin, while the sham group did not. Gorski suggests that this real physical difference between the groups may be all that’s necessary to cause the divergent brain activity.” .
	**Salzberg quotes Gorski, “I noticed that a lot of what they tracked as outcomes was patient satisfaction .”
	**Miller says, “There are some epidemiological studies that have been touted as offering real-world illustrations of hormesis in humans, but they have palpable shortcomings. (You can read an excellent analysis of them by surgical oncologist David H. Gorski here.)” (note Miller's description as “analysis”) .
	**Spector says, “Gorski describes some of the weaker grants, including one funding a study called Polysomnography in Homeopathic Remedy Effects. “Yes, you have it right. Your tax dollars are going to fund at least a study this year on homeopathic remedies (a. k. a. water). But it's even worse than that. <nowiki></nowiki> actually awarded to study homeopathic dilution and succession” - the act of shaking liquid each time it is diluted - “and how they effect the dose-response curve of homeopathic remedies. I kid you not. I just about spit out my tea onto my laptop keyboard when I read it. Naturally, it's at the Integrative Medicine Program at the University of Arizona” (which is run by Andew Weil). . (Sorry for the lack of page numbers, some versions of books on Google Books do not have page numbering). Ward discusses Gorski's evaluation of the possibility of alt med contributing to Steve Jobs death as “argues” and “playing the devil's advocate” (this source does not list page numbers).

	*Commentary:
	**Fiore quotes Gorski's comment on Job's death, “My best guess was that Jobs probably only modestly decreased his chances of survival, if that.” .
	**Miller quotes Gorski on clinical trials, “It’s important to know the results of all the trials.” .
	**Szabo quotes Gorski, “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is,” and cites him, “personal stories can be extremely misleading””A handful of success stories may show only a small part of the larger picture” .

	*Descriptions of his blog:
	** “insightful and witty” by McGill University .
	**“prominent medical blog” by Roach and Folger .
	**”The always incisive David Gorski, an oncologist, takes a detailed look at” by Herper .

	As you can see I have gone to some effort to improve the content of the article and improve it with sourced material. I look forward to collaborative effort to refine the article both for my edification and the the quality of the article.--] (]) 23:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
	===status===

	I see no need to argue specific points at this sort of length; regardless of what I see as the irrelevancy of some of what you say above, you did improve it. I will improve it further, putting the information in our usual format. I'm also condensing a little; we no longer need a major publications section, because they're discussed in the main text, as they ought to be, with the appropriate links in the references; similarly, the places where he spoke & titles of his talks are in the refs, His importance is sufficient that there is no need for an attempt to include minor material, or praise he gets from others. The place to list all his lectures and interviews is his web site--I recognize from the prior discussion you added some of this to justify notability , but that was not necessary--the academic notability is unquestionable. A reasonably concise to-the-point article is better & more effective --overkill gives the appearance of PR. So does anything that looks like name dropping. ''']''' (]) 03:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

	But as I rewrite, I notice there is some missing material, some of it very basic. We need the year of birth, the place, the name of his college, the year & college for his undergraduate degree, and the dates of his various appointments--at least the years. We will protect privacy by omitting such things as exact date of birth and current place of residency, and similar personal information, but the information listed above are the basic public identifiers for everyone; they go both in the text and the infobox. (I am quite aware of the need for privacy here considering some of the postings of his opponents.) I think I can hunt some or all of it down, but it's much better to have a regular source. The usual one for such things is a formal CV such as every academic has as a matter of course, but his pages at the university and the Institute do not have this information.

	As a minor point, I am not clear about the nature of his contribution to the eBooks mentioned--he is listed as coauthor on the website. Since they are not in Worldcat, I have no formal source. ''']''' (]) 05:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

	* There is also no need to mention how many cites his papers get, ] (]) 08:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
	**Thanks to everyone for their contributions. The article's content, tone and neutrality all seem to be steadily improving. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 17:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

	:::] thank you for your contributions to this article and to my learning. I apologize for the TLDR nature of several of my posts. You have really made this article much more encyclopedic and readable. I have a couple of questions/opinions remaining.
	:::*Analysis – I think the description of his skeptical work should refer to the level of in depth analysis he brings to a subject. This is supported by the sources who cite him. I think this is what makes his blog notable.
	:::*The Steve Jobs subject – notable enough for inclusion?
	:::*Ioannidis paper was presented to medical colleagues, worthy of mention?
	:::*Citation counts – I agree with ] they should go. Can we just call the first paper discussed highly cited and let it go at that?
	:::Addenda: The Science Based Medicine guides, I think the current statement is correct. He is editor or co-editor of several and creator of much of the content. Can the red link for Science-Based Medicine website be restored? Suggestions for cleaning up the citation list?
	:::Again thanks to everyone for their effort. – – ] (]) 17:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::I consider IR Wolfe quite wrong about citation counts. At AfD discussions on scientists, they're the basic proof of WP:PROF, upon which the decision usually hinges. Whenever I come upon a challenged academic article in a field where journals are important, the first thing I do is to add them. Since the notability as a scientist was in fact challenged, they're essential. As for the other wording mentioned, I do not see what it adds. We do not normally make red links except when we are certain of notability ; in this case, what you would need to do is write an article & we'll see if it gets accepted. It's not all that obvious it won't be challenged. AAs I mentioned on my talk p, the place for the Steve Jobs material is in the appropriate section of the article on Jobs, since this was a matter of controversy. Adjectives like "in-depth" are in my opinion ''always'' promotional, even when there's a source for them. ''']''' (]) 23:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Notice how you are giving them importance only because of wikipedia policy and guidelines. Material should be based on what secondary sources care about, and they don't care about cite counts (if they did they would tell us :> ). The cite counts are being gathered and are essentially original research. Cite counts is an argument for AfD, not something to clutter an article with. ] (]) 23:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

	:::I'm going to have to also agree with IRWolfie on the citation counts. I understand that they're useful for confirming the subject's notability, but the question that comes up for me when reading that section is: '''Is the article written for Misplaced Pages readers, or for editors looking to confirm the subject's notability?''' If the latter is the case, then I'd expect to read the citation counts in the article. To be clear, I fully understand their importance on this talk page; that's why those numbers guided my contributions to the section. But unless memory fails me, I've never read an encyclopedia with biographical articles that listed how many times each scientist was referenced in the professional literature. ] (]) 23:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::Yes I fully agree, if this was Stephen Hawking or something, I think the absurdity would be more apparent. ] (]) 00:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
	:::::you've never read an encyclopedia other than WP which documents each statement other than by the authority of the person writing the article or that of the editor. Our articles are written for WP readers, who must know in the article itself the basis of everything said, and be given the evidence that shows notability. I'm not going to argue over this article, but i people start removing such information from the hundreds of articles where many editors have put it, we'll have an interesting situation. The way it is normally worded: is the person's most cited articles are..., with the counts to show it, or the person's most important articles are ... with the evidence for most important being the counts, not our own opinions. The alternative is to accept the subject's own evaluation of what he chooses to list on his web p, if he makes a short selection there. Some of the other WPs link to a Gscholar or other list, just as they link to a national bibliography rather than list someone's books, but such links are very strongly discouraged here as unrepeatable. (If they're thought obtrusive, they can always go in a footnote.) The Hawking article has a list of selected academic papers, but for someone like Hawking, there was written by a competent science journalist, tho it took some hunting to find and it isn't referenced in the article, as it ought to be. ''']''' (]) 00:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
	::::::That article doesn't have the cite counts which we were discussing, ] (]) 09:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

	===Caution===
	Some editors are overstating material contained in sources, for example:
	*A '''Forbes blog''' has two sentences on Gorski: ''The always incisive David Gorski, an oncologist, takes a detailed look at the data for Avastin in breast cancer. His conclusion: it probably doesn’t help breast cancer patients, and that attempts to pin the decision on ObamaCare represent “utter demagoguery of the most vile and despicable sort.”''
	*And that Forbes content (above) is used to cite this text (in bold): He advocates for the openness of the results of clinical trials '''and the use of only evidence-based medicine to treat diseases.'''
	--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 17:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Source says''': regarding International Integrative Medicine Day it's ''(an “infiltration of quackademic medicine,” blogged David Gorski, a surgical oncologist at Wayne State University and one of the more prickly anti-alternative-medicine warriors, in despair).'' ]
	*This supports the '''WP text''': ''He has criticized the American Medical Student Association's co-sponsorship of International Integrative Medicine Day and was described by the popular science writer David H. Freedman as "one of the more prickly anti-alternative-medicine warriors.''
	--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 17:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

	:] I think there has been some editing without proper rearrangement of the sources. For, “and the use of only evidence-based medicine to treat diseases. “ Many of the reference support that statement (see Page and Sholom for highly specific descriptions, Greek and Menache for his contention that without a feasible mechanism of action alternative treatments are not appropriate for inclusion in a scientific review). Two sentences later in the same paragraph Gorski's opposition to the study of “treatment modalities that are inherently unscientific, being as they are based on prescientific or demonstrably incorrect understandings of human physiology and disease” a cited quote. The citation for second item you mention supports Gorski's opposition to alternative medicine. Virtually every reference for the Skepticism section supports this statement, '''are you really challenging it's factual and verifiable nature?''' This statement reads to me like basic encyclopedic summary (not spin or WP:OR).
	:I have edited the sentence on Integrative Medicine Day to reflect '''exactly''' what is said in the article. I don't see what you thought was an overstatement. – – ] (]) 19:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

	:The issue with the second example is not apparent. It appears to verify the text. ] (]) 00:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:38, 30 May 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the David Gorski article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Biography C‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Skepticism C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine B‑class Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the David Gorski article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

SageRad (talk · contribs) / David Gorski David Gorski This user has declared a connection. (COI declared here)

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

Removed reference to Dr Gorski's self-written bio

Personal dispute with article subject, has no place here.

Personal dispute with article subject, has no place here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 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) There are probably a lot of things you've never seen, and there's the added dimension that when someone is banned, you do not see them anymore. I cited papers from journals and i made sense. Then i got pretty well attacked by resident skeptoid piranhas. Then i replied to them and he banned me. That happened. That's the truth. You may not believe the part about "i made sense" but i sure did. This isn't the place, perhaps, to have that dialogue, but you did open that topic with a slight. SageRad (talk) 21:44, 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) And by the way, this is Strawman City: "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." So untrue, such a false characterization of me or what happened. I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. (Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.) SageRad (talk) 11:22, 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)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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)

There are probably a lot of things you've never seen, and there's the added dimension that when someone is banned, you do not see them anymore. I cited papers from journals and i made sense. Then i got pretty well attacked by resident skeptoid piranhas. Then i replied to them and he banned me. That happened. That's the truth. You may not believe the part about "i made sense" but i sure did. This isn't the place, perhaps, to have that dialogue, but you did open that topic with a slight. SageRad (talk) 21:44, 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)

And by the way, this is Strawman City: "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." So untrue, such a false characterization of me or what happened. I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. (Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.) SageRad (talk) 11:22, 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)

Closing of Dialogue

Grandstanding.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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)

Grandstanding.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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)

Unilateral closing of dialogue

SageRed blocked for trolling after many, many warnings. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

... has occurred on this page. Even closing of dialogue about closing of dialogue. At least it's in the hats above. SageRad (talk) 11:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You said «I have other things to do. I hope this can just rest.»

Do you want to reopen the dialogue, so you can have the last word again? The talk page is for improving the article. Spumuq (talq) 14:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Categories: