Talk:Christiane Northrup

Northrup Facebook Live about this article

This explains why we have seen persistent edits disrupting the page. And BTW the title of the book she mentions was fixed already. https://www.facebook.com/118912795028/videos/327784621995455 This is from Feb 17, 2021 and you would listen at about 6:10. Sgerbic (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

o_O @ the V sign for the "taboo word" (vaccine/vaccination). —PaleoNeonate – 12:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

"This explains why we have seen persistent edits disrupting the page" - Now that's a conspiracy theory. Perhaps it's the hit-piece style of the page that is reason for 'persistent edit'. Maybe hold it POV and avoid over the top editing? --105.12.5.17 (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2021

In the subheading Views and Controversy, paragraph 6, the first occurrence of "advise" should be changed to "advice". 2603:7080:E743:2F00:C92F:25E9:7BEE:A6A3 (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Done OneUpOnUs (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Alternative medicine sidebar

@MjolnirPants: My removal of {{Alternative medicine sidebar}} was reverted. Far from a prank, my rationale was WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, which notes "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox, so that the navigation is bidirectional. The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article." There is not a single biography in the sidebar, and I think the sidebar has strayed far from a well defined "series on Alternative Medicine" and become a bloated waste bin of mishmash that now ranges from Camel urine to Scientific racism to Chronic Lyme disease to COVID-19 misinformation (compare it to the more topically focused {{Alternative medicine}}). The sidebar's sections on conspiracy theories seems particularly tangential, although I recognize that there is some overlap between proponents of alternative medicine and proponents of conspiracies. The template's focal article, Alternative medicine, mentions conspiracies only once, and vaccines/vaccinations only once. Of the 274 article hosting the sidebar, only 16 are biographies, and surprise surprise, they're almost all COVID-19 conspiracy theorists or anti-vaccination activists. I am not arguing that Northrup isn't a conspiracy theorist. I am not arguing she isn't anti-vaccine, nor that she is not a follower or promoter of Alternative medicine. I simply think it is logically misguided (contra to the sidebar's title, Northrup is not "part of a series") and aesthetically very tacky to slap this very large, and bloated sidebar on anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, and even pro-vaccine, non-conspiratorial pracitioners of alternative medicine. Perhaps a new sidebar (tastefully constructed) for anti-vaxxers and/or conspiracy theorists is called for. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I am very interested in seeing that new sidebar you are interested in making Animalparty, until then this is what we got.Sgerbic (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

It's only what we got because people are getting it wrong. Somehow anti-vaxxer Andrew Wakefield is 'part of a series on Alternative medicine', but Samuel Hahnemann, the father of homeopathy, is not. Does that seem logical? Sidebars aren't to be slapped on every article tangentially, or even strongly related to just one or two items in the template. Per WP:NAVBOX/WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, articles in the template should strongly relate to a single coherent subject, and largely refer to each other in prose. I'll soon be advocating for the bloated med sidebar to be reduced in scope, especially the shoehorned conspiracy section. To put it simply: {{Alternative medicine sidebar}} should not be on this, or any biography, nor any article that's not in the template. For the same reason that {{History of baseball}} should not be on any baseball player, not even Jackie Robinson or Babe Ruth. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Animalparty, The quotation you brought from BIDIRECTIONAL says quite explicitly "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article." So it seems this is a matter of opinion, not any particular WP:PAG.

I personally think it's perfectly fine to have biographies in this sidebar, as many people are extremely notable for their alternative medicine advocacy, Christiane Northrup among them. Her name belongs in this sidebar as much as anyone else's, and I think names belong in the sidebar.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Your rationale was clearly stated in your edit summary; suggesting that it was a prank was baseless and uncalled for, and the point about her being anti-vax suggests that anti-vax and alternative medicine are equally suspect (which is not to say that they aren't both suspect). -- Jibal (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

the point about her being anti-vax suggests that anti-vax and alternative medicine are equally suspect Anti-vaccination sentiments are a part of alternative medicine.

And if it wasn't a prank, then it's... What? POV pushing? Vandalism? Naw, I for one, take WP:AGF a little more seriously than that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

"Anti-vaccination sentiments are a part of alternative medicine." -- I didn't say otherwise. This appears to be an argument against a strawman, based on a fallacy of affirmation of the consequent; poodles are dogs, but that wouldn't justify a claim that dogs have curly hair. Anti-vax sentiments are a part of sentiments generally, but that doesn't mean that the characteristics of the former adhere to the latter, nor to any other superset of anti-vax sentiments. And of course it was neither a prank, nor POV pushing, nor vandalism ... it was clearly good faith and has been explained here. And since I AGF on your part, I find your misrepresentations of User:Animalparty's position rather baffling. But I have no interest in tangling with you so I won't comment here further. -- Jibal (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Umm, do you even know how any of those informal fallacies work? I don't get the impression that you do. I'll be happy to explain them to you, if you like. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Please do not engage with me in this way. Not that my capabilities are relevant, but I'm an expert on the topic of logic and informal fallacies so yes, I do understand "how they work". Over and out. -- Jibal (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Cool story, bro. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Animalparty, if your objection is to the composition of the sidebar, then you should be discussing that at Template talk:Alternative medicine sidebar, not removing it from articles until it gets changed to suit you.

I'm glad to hear you think that Big Pharma conspiracy theories, AIDS denialism, vaccines and autism, the water fluoridation controversy and GMO conspiracy theories aren't relevant to alternative medicine, and I'm sure you could join us at Talk:Alternative medicine with some sources to support this claim. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@MPants at work: I believe we're talking past each other a bit. Let's please make this a bit more civil and drop the sarcasm. The top of the sidebar states: "This article is part of a series...". That, and WP:BIDIRECTIONAL implies that Northrup is part of that series, and would be thus found in the sidebar as well. Yet Northrup is not in the sidebar. In fact, no biographies are in the sidebar, hence, almost no biographies have the sidebar. There are hundreds of People in alternative medicine. None are included in the sidebar. Thus, no biographies should have this sidebar. The current prominence of the biography with respect to the sidebar topic is immaterial. As an analogy, {{TopicTOC-Biology}} does not contain Charles Darwin, and Charles Darwin does not contain {{TopicTOC-Biology}}. {{Rock music}} does not contain Elvis Presley, and vice versa. Barry Bonds is not in {{Doping in sport sidebar}}, and vice versa. --Animalparty! (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Asking me to not be sarcastic is like asking a a lizard to not be so lizardy. If you think I've been uncivil, then I apologize for not being more clear, but sarcastic flippancy is essentially my default setting, and a feature of most other modes I find myself in.

I understand what you're saying, but this article is part of our collection of alternative medicine articles. The fact that it's not linked in the sidebar is a result of the construction of the sidebar, not a problem with this article.

Now, if you want to ensure that no bios contain sidebars as you have explicitly suggested above, then I'd advise you to take the matter up at WP:VPP. Because we can't make site-wide decisions at this page, and that's certainly a site-wide decision. If you can get a consensus going there to remove all sidebars from all BLPs, I'll happily remove this one from this article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I did not say no biographies should contain sidebars, I said no biographies should contain this sidebar. Richard Nixon rightly contains {{Richard Nixon series}} because they are all intimately related to Nixon (and I even think it's okay that not all articles in that sidebar bare the sidebar itself: OSHA is related to but not part of core Nixon articles). Navigation boxes are for interlinking a well-defined series of tightly connected articles, not pointing the reader to a galaxy of possibly related topics (that's what Wikipedia is for). You say this article is part of a collection of alternative medicine articles. I agree. And thus so is every biography in People in alternative medicine. Do you think every biography in that category warrants this sidebar? Being part of a collection is not the same part of a well-defined series. The purpose of the template could be served with a single wikilink to Alternative medicine with respect to Northrup or any biography (BLP or dead), which avoids subjective and arbitrary judgments about which articles bear the sidebar. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you think every biography in that category warrants this sidebar? Yes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Well that's where we differ. I certainly don't hope that happens. Have a good day. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

A sidebar for the paranormal and other pseudoscience including alt med is warranted. Biographies and topics might need to be divided up, you don't have an argument with me. Create these sidebars, and make a series of them and I'll happily apply them, including the creator of homeopathy. Until that happens, this is what we have. Let me know when we have the Alt-med biographies. Sgerbic (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd get on board with that, as well. Creating a sidebar for "People in alternative medicine", I'd be 100% behind replacing this one with that one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: {{Paranormal}} already exists. Smaller, more focused templates are better than everything-plus-the-kitchen-sink templates that become dumping grounds rather than well curated series. (Not all baseball players belong in {{History of baseball}}). Just know that including biographies/BLPs in subjective or controversial templates (e.g. conspiracy theorist) can be particularly problematic, especially if being in a template implies guilt-by-association with other, more controversial items. See for instance {{Alt-right footer}}, which oscillated between including biographies and not (and is still rather a mess), with lots of talk page arguments over who deserves to be in or not. I voiced my concerns with the template here, which I think applies to many templates that try too hard be everything to everyone. My philosophy is generally less is more, and biographies generally better off deferred to lists or categories, save perhaps a very select and incontrovertible core group. There should always be a logical and compelling reason a reader would want to go between any two articles in a nav template, not just "two or more related articles exist". I will say no more. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Animalparty, iirc, you also were opposed to the existence of "people who believe X conspiracy theory" categories. Which leads me to believe that your position is "People should not be labelled as controversial labels at all, in any way, on wikipedia in templates, categories, lists, etc." Please let me know if I am misreading.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Animalparty, Smaller, more focused templates are better than everything-plus-the-kitchen-sink templates that become dumping grounds rather than well curated series. I'd be fine with a "People in the anti-vaccination movement" sidebar, as well.

I have an idea, tell me what you think:

• Create a master sidebar for, say, Alternative Medicine. It would look just like the one at {{Alternative medicine sidebar}}, but the script behind it would be different.
• Write the script (I'm fairly confident I can do this myself) so that, for example, when a parameter called "subtype" is provided the code "antivax", it changes the title from "Alternative medicine" to "Anti-vaccination" and replaces the "Fringe medicine and science", "Conspiracy theories (list)", "Classifications", "Traditional medicine" and "Diagnoses" menus with menus specific to anti-vaxxination (which would be stored in a separate template to aid loading time). So it might have "Topics", "Organizations" "History" and similar menus, all related to the anti-vaccination movement.
• A code for this parameter and a sub-template with the appropriate navigation menus would be created for each entry in the "Fringe medicine and science", "Conspiracy theories (list)" and "Traditional medicine" menus.
• Whenever the subtype parameter is passed a valid code, the "General information" menu from the main template will be moved to the bottom, below a subsection heading called "Part of a larger series on Alternative medicine". That subsection header would be a link to the Alternative medicine article (just like the top header is now), so that a user could quickly get back the main sidebar.
• I might be able to write a module that would let users switch between the main and the specific template on the fly. I'm not 100% sure yet, but I'm reasonably confident I could work something out in Lua.

This way, there would be a very specific sidebar, which would be a bit easier to navigate.

Now, as to your concerns about including people in these navbars: I understand them. I don't necessarily disagree, either. I can see good reasons why plastering a BLP's name into a sidebar that will end up on hundreds of articles can be a problem. I'm not advocating putting people's names into these sidebars. I only support adding these sidebars (or bottom-of-the-page navbars) to articles that are demonstrably part of the topic of the bars, even in situations where we don't cross-link those pages back in the bars.

But with respect to their name being associated with the concepts, and this tarnishing their reputation: If we didn't already have the sources to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these people are associated with these concepts, we wouldn't be discussing the use of such a sidebar on their articles to begin with. Associating Andrew Wakefield or Christiane here with anti-vaccination is not a BLP vio: It's us doing our jobs correctly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with the intricacies of sidebars and navbars to chip in on that part of the conversation. However, on that last point: editors haven't been shy about populating categories such as "American conspiracy theorists" with BLPs. If the sources justify inclusion into a category, they justify inclusion in a sidebar. We shouldn't be careless, but we shouldn't be shy.Robincantin (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. To steal your example, it's not the inclusion in the conspiracy theorist sidebar that I think presents a legitimate BLP concern, but inclusion in the conspiracy theorist sidebar, if you catch my meaning.

It's the dissemination of the names across hundreds of articles in a controversial context that I can see valid objections to. Andrew Wakefield's article should rightly call him the father of the modern anti-vax movement, and I firmly believe (and have argued many, many times) that we should pull no punches when it comes to accurately describing our BLPs. I think Nicholas Wade should be called a conspiracy theorist, because he's notable for writing a book that spread racial conspiracy theories and writing an article that spread Covid-19 related conspiracy theories. There's a strong, compelling case for calling him a conspiracy theory in his article (even though the article doesn't do so).

But hammering home that he's a conspiracy theorist on every single article about conspiracy theorists is taking that a bit too far. We're not an advocacy group. We don't really care whether people believe our articles or not. And it's an olive branch (even if it's a itty bitty one) to editors who argue vociferously against applying such labels to people who've earned them. I'm not here to "defeat" those people who disagree with me, and I'm well aware that even though I might disagree with many editors, I still have to work with them in the future. Whenever it comes to something that I don't have strong feelings about, I'm content to let those who disagree with me on it have their way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

MPants at work, Ah yes, no I would agree about Wade. If we had a sidebar that was specifically about "COVID-19 conspiracies," I think it's probably fair that he would be included as one of the most prominent. But you're absolutely right that his level of notability for conspiracy theory authorship does not rise to the level that he should be labelled as such across every single conspiracy theory article. That would be undue and, frankly, rude to Mr. Wade, regardless of my overall opinion of his claims. Still rude.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

That's about where I stand. I'm firmly on the side of accurately labelling conspiracy theorists, but I draw the line at going out of our way to disrespect them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Dartmouth University

The article says:

"Northrup earned her Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) degree at Dartmouth University ..."

According to Wikipedia, "Dartmouth University is a defunct institution in New Hampshire which existed from 1817 to 1819."

Please edit the article to clarify. 76.130.95.131 (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Changed to Dartmouth Medical School. That should fix the issue. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Please include Northrup's date of birth

A google search refers us to Wikipedia where Northrup's date of birth is clearly: Born: October 4, 1949 (age 72 years), Yarmouth, Maine, United States The absence of a d.o.b. on the main page is a bizarre and confusing anomaly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.66.239.12 (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources are required. The results of a Google search do not make for a reliable source. --Hipal (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Add a section about Ukraine

Northrup has joined the ranks of those who express support for the Russian invasion based on the (false) claim that Putin was secretly targeting bioweapons and child trafficking facilities in Ukraine. [1] 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:8734 (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)