Talk:Mucoid cap

NPOV issues

The sentence:

“The existence of mucoid plaque in most people has been dismissed by physicians as having no anatomical or physiological basis”

should be modified because they do not say nor suggest most people but rather they say ALL people("never seen" "anything like" "complete fabrication"). It's a misrepresentation of what they are saying. Also, if you go to Ed’s web page you will see that he is referring to “electron micrographs.” Those are Anderson’s scanning electron microscope studies that I SHOWED HIM a while back via e-mail!!

Also, the sentence:

“Among the components used in the cleansing pills are bentonite, an absorbent clay, and psyllium (some varietes use guar gum and pectin); these ingredients, when combined, will create a "rubbery cast" of their container, including the intestines.”

clearly violates WP:SUBSTANTIATE which says you must attribute the claim to a known authority. It should be made clear who is saying what. It should be made clear that a non-medical skeptic is speculating this. Also, the Physicians Desk Reference under “Metamucil” proves that this is not a fact. Heelop (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"The existence of mucoid plaque in most people has been dismissed by physicians as having no anatomical or physiological basis" could be rewritten to read "The existence of mucoid plaque has been dismissed by physicians as having no anatomical or physiological basis". This will get rid of any qualified or unqualified estimation of the plaque's alleged prevalence, so I'll change it now.

WP:SUBSTANTIATE does not require attributing a claim to a "known authority"...the statement regarding the ingredients clearly reflects the source. If you've any suggestions that avoids weasel words, I'd be interested to read them. I'll move the attribution to immediately after "rubbery cast" as that's a good way of linking a direct quote to its source. Your original research regarding metamucil is generally irrelevant. — Scientizzle 18:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, the basic policy aspect is parity of sources. If we're accepting self-published promotional books and websites as sources, then Skeptoid is certainly comparably reliable. MastCell ^Talk 19:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

First, I agree that WP:SUBSTANTIATE does not require attributing a claim to a "known authority". That is why I originally attributed it to a “non-medical skeptic”. However, WP:SUBSTANTIATE does require attributing to a source to avoid weasel words. I’m sorry but the claim “These ingredients create a ‘rubbery cast’ of the intestines” must be attributed to that non-medical skeptic that made the claim. I have fixed the problem by editing it. To clarify, MastCell, I was not tying to get rid of the skeptoid source. My edits reflect that I was only attributing it to a source.

Second, we must rewrite the heading from “Reception by the medical profession” to “Reception by the medical profession and others” because the heading suggests that that skeptic you cited has a medical degree, which he does not. Also, it will allow you to combine sources from both medical degree holders and non-medical degree holders under one heading. However, we must distinguish, by attributing, between which are the medical professionals and which are the amateurs. If you specify that Anderson is a naturopath and an entrepreneur, it is only fair to specify that that skeptic is a computer scientist, not a physician. I have fixed the problem by editing it.

Keep in mind that there have been literally thousands of experiments done on psyllium (a.k.a Metamucil), including toxicity studies and not one of them mentions that it creates a rubbery cast of the intestines. Not one. So Wikipedia can’t state it as a fact.

Heelop (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Psyllium alone isn't alleged to create the cast...Bentonite is used in to make clumping cat litter, guar gum is an industrial thickener, and pectin is a gelling agent. One needn't be a rocket surgeon to realize that these components just might have the capacity to create this crap (pun intended). But, again, it wasn't "stated as a fact", it was attributed to a specific source.

Your changes introduced many weasel words: "speculate", "some sketics", "non-medical", etc. — Scientizzle 23:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I would not like the section retitled "reception by medical profession and others". Others is very non-specific and not relevant. Criticism should be integrated wherever possible. This is why I have suggested creating a "causes" section where alleged causes, and their evidence (where evidence actual exists) can be described, this would also allow movement of material out of teh lead. I agree with Scientizzle that Heelops modifiers are of a weasely nature, and can be easily avoided.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Scientizzle, you are misunderstanding the WP:SUBSTANTIATE rule which says:

"For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre," as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true."

Your phrase "These ingredients create a 'rubbery cast' of the intestines" WAS stated as a fact rather than appropiately attributed to someone whose opinion it is. Heelop (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This is silly; you're citing a value judgement about the greatest baseball player ever. This is not a value judgement, and you're misusing policy. Additionally, you appear to be over three reverts, so please slow down. The section should be titled "Analysis", or some such, because that's what it is - independent analysis of Anderson's claims. No, it's not only "medical professionals", and making the section title even more unwieldy is definitely a step in the wrong direction. MastCell ^Talk 01:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. No MastCell. You are the one misusing policy. It does not say that this rule only applies to value judgements. Wikipedia just gave that as one example. According to your misinterpretation, the mucoid plaque article could also say "Clinical and anatomical studies from many papers and textbooks have demonstrated that mucoid plaque exists in the alimentary canal" and then simply give a link to Anderson without specifying in the sentence that Anderson claims that. Heelop (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"These ingredients create a cast" is not value judgement. It is a statement of fact that does need specific attribution (it does need referencing). It is similar to saying "mixing water and dirt creates mud". It needs a reference, not an authority. I could see modification being made to say "these ingedients can create a cast", as I do not think it has been established they will make a cast, or that it has been observed that they do.--ZayZayEM (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"Analysis" is a bad term here. "Reception" is more neutral and accurate in describing what ahs actually ocured. No one has gone out and measured the claims and performed experiements. People have just responded to what has been perceived as another tirade of CAM claims with no evidence. And again I'll reiterate seperating claims and criticism is a bad idea. It allows claims to go unchallenged in the rest of the article, and significant views on the topic marginalised to a tiny section. Bad statements by non-professionals should be directly analysed when and where they are brought up.--ZayZayEM (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Skeptics

As in many other alt med articles (and fringe articles more generally), anyone who does not provide evidence supporting the claimed treatment or condition is called a "skeptic" when most are just ordinary doctors, scientists, and so on. We don't need to label these people "skeptics" any more than we need to call those who adhere to some given practice "true believers." So how about we minimize the use of the term "skeptic" except where it's truly applicable? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

agreed--ZayZayEM (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Verified timeline

The timeline needs to avoid original research and fringe theory. We can not perform analysis ourselves. This means that even if something historically resembles something that could perhaps maybe be interpretted as "OMG MUCOID PLAQUE!!!1!", it does not mean it is relevant or verifiable.

The historic reports that were recently added [1] have no relevance to the topic at hand, which is (Anderson's?) modern concept of a mucoid plaque.

As discussed above Anderson is not a reliable source himself. So even if he claims "OMG Mucoid plaque!!1!" it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion unless the claim is directly relevant to describing what a mucoid plaque per WP:SELFPUB (ie. that Anderson thinks a "bizarre stool" from Color Atlas of the Digestive System is linked to mucoid plaque is not really relevant, Anderson is not an authority on human coprology). Neither do Anderson's interpretation of pre 1950s medical articles that are not available for scrutiny and verification.

Material that is discussed in in reliable 3rd party sources may be included, but must be accurately represented. Including material from notable third party CAM publications is fine, as long as it is represented as coming from such a publication.

The inherent notability of this "condition" is not that it is based in reality, but more that it is widely circulated concept amongst CAM practioners. (This is coming from the consensus generated by 2 x AFD discussion). This is not the place to either disprove or prove that mucoid plaque exists. It is a place to describe the concept.--ZayZayEM (talk) 09:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions that could well be answered in the article

Just some things I found missing in the article when I rewrote it and found it hard to establish from sources.

• When did Anderson "coin" the term?
• When/where did Andersion first claim to coin the term?
• Is Anderson claim to have "coined" the concept undisputed? (Note: Anderson is most certainly not a reliable source for this detail)

• Can we get independent descriptions of the "plaque"?
• Is the plaque only observed as an excreted product?
  • Is its excretion only associated by colonic cleanser pill usage (the 1932 reference Bastedo seems to refute this, but is BAstedo really referring to plaque which was not a concept in 1932?)
  • Is its excretion only associated with CAM treatment?

• Do we have any figures on sales or number of products used to treat mucoid plaque? (must be specifically mucoid plaque figures, otherwise might be appropriate for colonic irrigation).

• Is anyone other than Anderson currently active in this area? (Is it still naturopathy if other naturopaths don't take it seriously..?)

I think Heelop may have some helpful information in response to these. It would be appreciated if you discussed here with relevant sources before editing the article to ensure a consensus interpretation of sources, and that such sources are reliable.--ZayZayEM (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I would add one essential question to the above: can any of these be addressed by independent, reliable secondary sources? MastCell ^Talk 07:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the more important question can anyone really be bothered looking for them. That's why I think Heelop may be help in identifying appropriate sources that discuss this seriously.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about you. I have looked for reliable sources, extensively, and failed to find any. I have concluded that this is because such sources do not exist. I would welcome proof that I'm wrong, so please feel free to do some legwork looking for sources. It might actually be useful to use the reliable sources as a starting point rather than bloating the article with detail from Anderson's self-published books, I would think. MastCell ^Talk 06:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If such sources can't be found I will wholeheartedly support a renomination for deletion. If this phenomenom has can not be provided any context from reliable sources outside of Anderson's own material then an appropriate wikipedia article cannot be created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZayZayEM (talk • contribs)

You're using the passive voice ("if sources can't be found"). Someone has to find the sources. The article's been around forever. I've looked for sources. What you see in the article is the sum total of what I've come up with. Are you aware of any additional independent, usable sources? I will support deletion of this article in any AfD - in fact, I nominated it last time around. It's a major headache for me, because the lack of good sources leads to these sorts of frustrating roundabout discussions, and Heelop (talk · contribs) pops up every few months to turn the article into a promotional ad, just to see if anyone's still watching it. I'd happily wash my hands of it. MastCell ^Talk 20:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know how any editor came to any such conclusions about Anderson, of all people. The term "Mucoid Plaue" predates Anderson's commercialization. But far as there being any "reliable" sources- How could there be any, when a politically-powerful AMA always takes direct aim at competition for the American dollar? This is just how it works. The bigger problem is that WP assumes an ideal and functional "free press", lol. WP assumes similar unreal ideals control academia, the American Academy, the judiciary, etc --& one and all in society up to Money and God, am I right? It's all a racket. I hope the latest media scandal has innoculated this generation from such idealism and snobbery.

Money turns worlds, not truth. When crime pays, we legalize it- or label it "national security". But there's no money in this "Mucouid Plaue"; yet it remains intermittently popular, and if it is systematically studied in any nation, it is the USA- a system which yet insists medicine act strictly allopathically, via patent remedies-- or be deemed 'non-scientific'.

I suggest here the underlying meme- the "Mucusless Diet"- predates Mr. Anderson's efforts by generations. Harvey Kellog was famously onto this over 100 years ago with his exotic spa treatments. His "Graham crackers" and their flours were Kellog's direct response to fiber-depleted diets and the 'assumed relation' (right?) with degeneration of the colon.

Lately I have myself seen the term "mucoid plaue" used in self-published Bernard_Jensen texts published before the 1980's. These remain available. But in the 1980's I also saw secondary literature review on the subject by a Mr Gray- hardly academic. Just a complete, practical reference based on generations of experience outside of authorized mainstreams... Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. 03:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Good CAM Bad CAM

I am unsure why the weasely term "some" continues to be reinserted in front of the alternative medicine usage. If it is used by "some" alternative medicine people, than it is used in alternative medicine.

The only purpose "some" can be used without specifying is to try an place a (negative) POV. --ZayZayEM (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I admit to being baffled by your interpretation. It's quite simple. Mucoid plaque is not a general "alternative medicine" concept. It's a barely notable subclaim in the subset of colonic irrigiation. It's essentially the product of a single entrepreneur. Does NCCAM mention it? No. Does any reputable, reliable alt-med source mention it? Not that I've seen, but feel free to bring some sources here for discussion.

The lead should make clear that this is not a widely accepted part of alternative medicine, but a concept promoted by a small handful of websites and self-published books. That's an integral part of informing the reader, not inserting a "negative POV". MastCell ^Talk 06:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Telling the Wikitruth is a very serious part of WP:WEASEL. Wikipedia has no duty to make things "clear" if they aren't backed up sources. That's why we need sources. If we can't find sources, this article is doomed to fail and should be renominated for deletion.--ZayZayEM (talk) 07:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"Wikitruth"? The sources we have are quite clear, that this is a "non-credible concept" (to put it politely). I don't see the need to soften or obscure what those independent sources say; in fact, I think honesty and NPOV demand that we be clear about it. MastCell ^Talk 20:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing and Parity

The straight.com article is not very helpful [2].

In discussing mucoid palque it pretty much relies on two sources (Quackwatch and Skeptic.com) which are already used in the article. Bringing in this third source - which does not add anything significant to the discussion - is not very helpful.

The Daily Mail is not a very reliable source, particular in its not-news style articles where an unqualified journalist tries to give out their opinions on their latest pop culture assignment. And more pertinently the source provided does not say "Mucoid plaque is predominantly discussed within the complementary and alternative medicine community, particularly in anecdotal accounts of colon hydrotherapy procedures" - rather it is an anecdotal account which briefly touches on mucoid plaque (though from reading in the context of consumption of "detox drinks" at "a custom-built fasting resort on Koh Chang island", not shovinga hose up your arse). --ZayZayEM (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The Daily Mail part can be rewritten if you like. These sources are all well-covered by WP:PARITY, including straight.com, and easily clear the bar set by our heavy use of Anderson's self-published books as sources. I strenuously object to their removal, as I do to the reams of changes in the last few days which bloat the article with irrelevant detail from Anderson's self-published books (read: unreliable sources) while weasel-wording our few relatively reliable sources to death.

This should be a short, straightforward article and it should proceed from our best sources, using the self-published promotional work only to flesh out a few details. The direction of the article has been completely the reverse, which is disappointing.

I see two possibilitites: a) the independent sources establish notability, in which case they need to form the backbone of the article. Or b) the independent sources are "not very helpful", in which case this topic fails WP:FRINGE epically and needs to be deleted. I can get behind a) or b), but the current trend in edits is unacceptably unencyclopedic, opaque, and unreadable from my perspective. MastCell ^Talk 06:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Independent sources are fine and I have no problem with web articles like skeptoid being used. These should form at least a significant part of the article structure - but however the straight.com article is merely a duplication of two sources already being used. It is clearly not an independent source.

• The daily mail article on the other hand is being wholly misrepresented. You are using an interpretation of what the article represents, not its actual contents to make a statement. While I generally agree with the statement (although I have pointed out its clearly erroneous on at least one count, she takes a herbal drink/tablet, not a colonic irrigation) this sort of use of references is on a par with "pubmed turns up no results" and needs to be scoured from Wikipedia.--ZayZayEM (talk) 07:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell. These mass changes without discussion are uncollaborative and unhelpful, even though no doubt well meant. Make suggestions for changes here first. Controversial articles are bad places to follow WP:BRD. -- Fyslee / talk 06:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to get discussion going. But I do prefer acting WP:BOLD (especially with an article that is very obviously broken). I was considering my actions hel;pful in attempting to remove the contentious material brought in by both sides. I am very against unequal treatment whereby sweeping changes introduced to remove certain promotional contributions are welcomed, but then when I equally apply scrutiny to characterisation of cricism is then promptly dismissed.--ZayZayEM (talk) 07:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, being bold here will only result in solo editing and edit wars, so the only way forward is as with other contentious articles, and that is a strict adherance to collaborative editing and consensus. Any edit which might be contested should be proposed here first. If the other editors agree, then you have a consensus and the edit can be made. If an edit is made before doing so, and it gets reverted, then it should not be restored. There the BRD cycle should be followed. Restoring it would be edit warring, which is a blockable offence. It's best to avoid the BRD cycle whenever possible. -- Fyslee / talk 07:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

SRSLY? I am backing out of this one. Please let me know if it gets on AFD. I will nominate it myself if there isn't any change over the next coming months.

Collaborative editing is a two-way street. There was absolutely no consensus here before. So there is no grounds to reverting back to a previous non-consensus. I have attempted to discuss issues with other editors contributions before sweeping changes, and have usually waited well time before introducing changes. However its hard to continue to use good faith when my contributions are just willy nilly back-rolled without similar at least attempt at discussion about where I might have gone wrong. --ZayZayEM (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, but I don't have any idea what SRSLY stands for. Of course collaborative editing is a two way street, and I haven't indicated otherwise. It means sitting down at the same table and not including anything controversial until the editors at the table agree to do so. Give it a try. It really makes things much easier around here. -- Fyslee / talk 20:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

SRSLY!? You don't know!? :) — Scientizzle 20:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

ZayZayEM, you've done a lot to improve this page. Thanks. Please keep up the good work. — Scientizzle 20:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just started a new job. Stuff was very quiet for the first few weeks as I had to wait for new projects to come on board. Projects have arrived now, so I really can't be bothered assigning myself to another labour intensive battle to improve a wikipedia article. That slot is currently taken by Influenza pandemic. I'll be practicing wiki-gnoming in the meantime until my next lull period (which doesn't look anytime to soon)--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Inadvertent Skeptics for Anderson?

"The term was coined by Richard Anderson, a naturopath and entrepreneur who sells a range of products that claim to cleanse the body of such plaques"

This statement is very poor. For one Andersons status as an "entrepenuer" is not relevnat to his authority here (whatever authority he might have).

Neither is it appropriate for Wikipedia to be going on about how he sells curative stuff.

If the point is to show that he's a guy who only serves to profit from perpetuating this idea that he coincidentally created and cures **wink wink** - then SAY so. If you can't say so without violating POV - then you can't imply it either. (I think this may be where the straight.com article may come into play).

It is a similar motivation for not using the word "skeptic". This sentance can be interpreted two very different ways depending on your perspective on the topic.--ZayZayEM (talk) 07:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a reasonable point. I'll look through straight.com - most of the sources seem to make a point that Anderson profits by selling products which "cleanse" mucoid plaque, but our wording could be more direct and more clear. MastCell ^Talk 20:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Long-term decisions

In response to MastCell's frustration about maintaining this article, I would like to suggest a system which may help maintain this article more easily in the long term. I welcome comments on whether to have such a system and on its design.

I suggest:

• Maintaining a list of decisions about the article, the results of discussions
• To change or remove something from the list of decisions would require a broader discussion; there would be an understanding that such discussions are not to be started too often
• People can add themselves to a list of people who want to be notified of such discussions

Things that might be included in the list of decisions:

• Minimum and maximum numbers of words in total in direct quotes from Anderson
• Minimum and maximum numbers of words in descriptions of Anderson's theories
• Whether certain particular quotes, phrases or references are to be included, if there has been a substantial amount of discussion about the particular item
• Whether material about John Wayne is to be included or not
• Etc.; whatever tends to be contentious for this article

Ways to put items on the list could include

• Looking back through the talk page archives for decisions that have already been arrived at in the past via discussion and consensus
• Discussion on this talk page among several editors, reaching consensus (only to add new decisions to the list; changing or removing would require broader discussion)
• A discussion after notifying all the people on the list (to add, change or remove items)
• An RfC, perhaps closed by an uninvolved admin; several items could perhaps be discussed at once in such an RfC

Comments welcome. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Short response: Ummm... no.

Medium response: That's not how wikipedia works. Editors seem to be collaborating fine and working towards a solution that should not involve uneccessary redtape and restrictions that will stifle collaboration and contributions.--ZayZayEM (talk) 11:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the postings on this talk page be moved under topics rather than simply remain in chronological order while the history tab be used to see the postings chronologically -- (1) Each posting may be moved under topics but must be left in its whole form unadulterated. (2) Each posting may be put under more than one topic. (3) The topics that no one is presently interested in will be put in the archives. The usefulness of this system are (1) Editors can readily get a briefing on all the arguments ever made about a topic (3) It will encourage editors to focus on one topic at a time. (4) Flexibility is still preserved in that we can still discuss more than one topic at a time and retrieve and archive topics at will. Heelop (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(1) Modification to my original proposal: if a decision is added to the list by consensus on this talk page rather than by a broader discussion, then it can also be changed or removed by consensus on this talk page; only the ones added via broader discussion would require another broader discussion to change or remove. A number of pages have comments in the wikitext asking people not to change certain things without discussion on the talk page; this would be similar. I think the principle that we don't over-ride decisions made by broader community consensus is already policy; perhaps I'm just proposing keeping track of things in a more organized way.

(2) Reply to Heelop's proposal: I'm not keen on moving comments, as it removes their context, but editors can be encouraged to post comments in sections devoted to those topics.

(3) A less drastic proposal: How about having a FAQ page and/or an Archive guide page (guide to the talk page archive)? I proposed this for the Circumcision page here and have started implementing an Archive guide at Talk:Circumcision/Archive guide. This can help people easily find previous discussions on a topic, which can help cut down on repetitive discussions. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 14:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

A FAQ page can be a good idea. See Talk:Intelligent design for an example. It's very useful for "stuff which has been dealt repeatedly before". However it usually works best on pages with a set of dedicated editors and actively involved project groups. I do not think we have had enough discussion here, nor enough numbers/attention to create something that appropriately represents the consensus of wikipedia, rather than a subset of editors. Maybe I'm being negative, but I think it would be better not to create a mountain out of a molehill.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of the words "skeptics" and "speculate"

First of all, it is a well established NPOV policy that statements must be attributed to a source making the statement.

Second, your objection to calling them "skeptics" is bizarre. The title of the blog is "skeptoid". The whole blog is in defense of people who want to be called skeptics. The author of the blog insists on being called a skeptic. The author of the blog is proud of being called a skeptic. The blog is trying to support and encourage skepticism. To not call Brian Dunning a skeptic would be disrespectful to him and his whole mission as well as inaccurate.

Third, the use of the word "speculate" is an exact dictionary definition of what Brian Dunning is doing. In fact, on his web site http://skeptoid.com/references.php , Brian says that "you will not find transcripts on this site to be footnoted or otherwise supplemented with authoritative references" because "you shouldn't believe me or anyone else." You are disrespecting Brian Dunning by insisting on using him as an authoritative source that should be believed when he insists otherwise. Heelop (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not need to be respectful to anyone. Wikipedia also does not mind about possible dictionary definitions of words. Words can have multiple meanings, being careful about wording is an important part of . You are acting against previous consensus that has been brought up several times on this talk page (Talk:Mucoid_plaque#Skeptics). When acting against consensus you need to develop a new consensus before bringing in disputed changes (especially if they were previously disputed and decided against). Bold editing is fine, but if you are going to be bold, deal with with the bold-revert-discuss cycle. --ZayZayEM (talk) 09:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

ZayZayEM, if you look under that subheading (Talk:Mucoid_plaque#Skeptics) again, you will see that you agreed that the term "skeptic" may be applied "where it's truly applicable." My God ZayZayEM, it does not get anymore applicable than this. If you go to Brian Dunning's blog spot and learn about him, you will see that he is undisputedly a skeptic. Furthermore, you both suggested, incorrectly, that Brian Dunning is an "ordinary doctor" or scientist. He is neither. He is just a skeptic as well as a computer engineer, which has nothing to do with human physiology or even biology. Heelop (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I replaced this reference with a better source that makes the same conclusions. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved from article for discussion

I've moved the following text here from the article for discussion:

In 1935, at the age of 40, Victor Earl Irons claimed he developed a severe illness, which inspired him to research “natural methods” of healing. He pioneered, for the first time, the use of psyllium and bentonite to be used as part of a colon cleansing program.[3]

Heelop had restored this text, citing WP:V: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." Unfortunately, this snippet from WP:V leaves out the list of caveats which follow regarding appropriate use of such sources. Among other concerns, the material must not be "unduly self-serving". I consider that a self-published source claiming its subject was the "founder" or "first to use" a particular remedy may potentially be unduly self-serving. That sort of rather exceptional claim should require independent sourcing. If he really was the pioneer, and if pioneering this particular approach is notable, then it should be relatively easy to find an independent, reliable source confirming it. MastCell ^Talk 21:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the WP:V text should be modified to read "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information in articles about themselves," but maybe that might cause some unforeseen problem, so it should be discussed and analyzed first. Using it the way Heelop is doing would allow anything, including the most unreliable sources, as content here. -- Fyslee (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The text can be modified to read:

• "In 1935, at the age of 40, Victor Earl Irons claimed he developed a severe illness, which inspired him to research “natural methods” of healing. He claims to have pioneered, for the first time, the use of psyllium and bentonite to be used as part of a colon cleansing program." [4]

This makes the claim about himself. Note also that nobody disputes that he made this claim and that there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of Springreen.com because the company was founded by Victor Earl Irons himself. Heelop (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't help much. Even if we can verify that he did claim to have pioneered it, if there's no verification that he pioneered it (or has been said by notable sources to have done so) then putting it in the article would probably violate WP:UNDUE. We don't put something in the article just because someone said it. There would have to be some reason to consider it significant that they had said it. As MastCell said, claiming that one has pioneered something sounds potentially self-serving, thus that section of WP:V doesn't apply. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig, if what you said is true, then that blog spot by that skeptical computer engineer would have to be removed as well because even if we can verify that that computer engineer, Brian Dunning, claims that psyllium and bentonite molds to the intestines, if there's no verification that psyllium and bentonite does, in fact, mold to the intestines, then putting it in the article would also be a violation. The reason, Coppertwig, Irons' claim is significant is because (a) the Wiki article is about psyllium and bentonite and mucoid plaque, is it not? (b) we have a history section that is supposed to give the history of psyllium and bentonite and mucoid plaque. (c) it is easily verifiable that everyone, including Richard Anderson, considers Irons to be one of the pioneers of mucoid plaque removal (b) it is easily verifiable that, in alternative medicine circles, Irons is considered to be an authority on mucoid plaque removal and that absolutely nobody disputes that he pioneered psyllium and bentonite shakes. Heelop (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can provide a third-party source stating that he pioneered it, then the bit about being "self-serving" would not apply to that source. I see no reason why the computer engineer's statement would be considered "self-serving", so the same reasoning wouldn't apply. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, if there are no reliable sources supporting a statement, then it can't be included in an article. Anybody can claim to have pioneered something, so you need an independent source to support such a claim. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The chemical status of the psyllium and bentonite models are "facts". They do not require attribution. These are not controversial statements that these polymer creating subtances that would mould into the shape of the intestines if ingested. What needs to be sourced is: if ingested and eliminated would these substances resemble the description provided of mucoid plaque? Are alleged mucoid plaques made of these substances? Do mucoid plaque curing treatments contain these ingredients? Are they included with malicious or unintended intent on behalf of marketers? etc.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem that you have is that we have already agreed to use the WP:Fringe rules which are an exception to the normal verifiability rules. That is why you allow that blog spot from that computer engineer to stay even though it is not normally considered to be a reliable source. Because we are using the WP:fringe rules, which are an exception to the normal verifiability rules, the "self-serving" part does not apply. Heelop (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that's back-asswards. We've acquiesced in the use of low-quality promotional sources because those are the only ones describing this claim in detail. Since we're using those low-quality sources, WP:PARITY suggests that Skeptoid would also be acceptable as a source. That doesn't mean that you can pile on as many promotional, low-quality sources as you want, but rather that the bar is no higher for "skeptical" sources than it is for the promotional sources you've added and defended. MastCell ^Talk 01:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about MastCell? The WP:PARITY rules state: "the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article may include material from websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed. By parity of sources critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from websites and books that are not peer reviewed." It is saying that both sides can equally ("likewise") use web sites. Heelop (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Coppertwig. You have not pointed out any rule that states that you can't add the fact that somebody claims something without a third-party source agreeing that that somebody's claim is true. That bit about "self-serving" does not mention that you can't add the fact that somebody claims something without a third-party source agreeing that that somebody's claim is true. All you are doing is using your imagination to interpret the rules as you please. Given that you have still not provided a clear rational, the springreen.com source goes back up. Heelop (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the pioneering claim is undue weight unless it can be sourced reliabily who really did the pioneering (if it was him or someone else). --Enric Naval (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Heelop, MastCell already pointed out the rule: it's the caveat from WP:V about not being unduly self-serving (for self-published sources).

Heelop, by your argument, if I were to post on a personal blog tomorrow, "actually, I'm the one who first used the term 'mucoid plaque'", then the fact that I claimed that should go in the article. :-) Not so. We only post information that's relevant, interesting and of a comparable notability to other information in the article. If there's no particular reason to believe someone's claim, then there's no reason to think that it's relevant to this article. Presenting someone's claim even as a quote tends to gives it weight and may violate WP:UNDUE.

His stating that he used bentonite for colon cleansing might be something to put in the Colon cleansing article. His stating that he pioneered it might be relevant in a biography of him. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a well known, easy to prove fact that alternative medicine practioners as well as sellers of other types of colon cleansing products consider him to be the pioneer of mucoid plaque removal that they all look up to and admire. That makes him relevant, does it not? Heelop (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Did he pioneer the use of the term which is the title of this article? BTW, can you find out for us when Anderson first coined the term? -- Fyslee (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That may be. Perhaps you could find such sources; that would eliminate (cough) the applicability of the "self-serving" clause, and we could consider the reliability of the sources, whether it would be more relevant in the colon cleansing article etc. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for offering to eliminate the applicability of the self-serving clause. Here are sources that are completely independent of Irons' products:

"DeAguero's program was similar to one that was marketed for many years by Victor Earl Irons (1918-1998), one of the three 'pioneers of nutrition' whom Arguer cites as inspirational to him." [5]

"If one still wishes to purchase hydrated bentonite in a form ready for use internally, we recommend products by V.E. Irons, Inc. V.E. Irons, Inc. has been in business for decades, and has contributed to the knowledge base of humanity with their own research staff. V. Earl Irons, founder, was a pioneer in natural products long before most of our country knew what a supplement was. They have published papers and been involved in the vitamin/supplement movement since its inception." [6]

"Dr. V.E. Irons, a pioneer in colon cleansing theory and activity, and a staunch advocate against modern medicine wrote a booklet called: The Destruction OF YOUR OWN NATURAL PROTECTIVE MECHANISM. In this booklet he made the following statements: ‘. . .We can prove that we can find hardened mucous with its foul smelling curd in the colons of 95% of the entire nation.’" [7]

In addition, many other people that distribute Irons’ products say he is the pioneer:

"V.E. Irons products, founded in 1946, produced on their organic farm, was this country's first TRUE natural nutrition company that broadly distributed directly to the public. In fact, if you research many of todays products, ‘GREENS’ powders and tablets, Bentonite and Psyllium Cleanse programs, etc...most of them, if not all, will at some point source back to their conceptual origin---their true source V.E. Irons."[8]

"Irons also pioneered the use of psyllium and bentonite to clean out the digestive tract and promote bowel health. He was the first to formulate a USP Grade Bentonite product called the V.E. Iron's Vitaratox Bentonite Detoxificant #16 as used in internal cleansing programs."[9]

Heelop (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) In those quotes, I don't see the phrase "mucoid plaque", so it's not immediately obvious that they have any relevance to this article. I also don't see the phrase "the pioneer" of anything, as opposed to "a pioneer". The last quote does state that he pioneered the use of psyllium and bentonite. However, it's from a website which I don't think is a reliable source, and for a claim of that nature (i.e. that he was the one who pioneered it), we would need a sufficiently reliable source for history items; I don't think the special rules for sources for fringe topics would apply to that type of statement. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

Is there such a word as "microbioata", or should it be "microbiota"? Google seems to say there are a lot of hits for "microbioata", but I suspect it might be counting the "microbiota" hits as matching; some of the top few hits are in other languages, though some look like normal uses of that spelling. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's microbiota. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Confidence trick or quackery?

I had originally categorised this concept as a confidence trick, but as coppertwig points out, this categorisation implies a deliberate intent to deceive. It is perfectly possible that Anderson does actually believe in what he sells. The category "quackery" would be perfect, since that covers misguided true believers as well as deliberate con artists, but that isn't a current option. What do people think? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the BLP issue needs to be avoided. Even though this may look like a scam, it could just as well be due to ignorance. He's a naturopath, so this is par for the course for many of them. They believe in lots of other weird things, like homeopathy, etc.. We need a Category:Medically non-credible concepts, oops! we already have Category:Alternative medicine, but that doesn't quite convey the right message either. -- Fyslee (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It already has the pseudoscience category; maybe that's enough. Other categories on health articles listed at List of pseudosciences include Category:Alternative diagnoses, Category:Alternative medical systems and Category:Ailments of unknown etiology. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Alternative diagnoses is the closest one, and when I look at it, this one would be in good company. The PS category should still be used.

I have noticed that the category is populated with a very diverse mix and have separated it by creating a Category:Alternative medical diagnostic methods. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't want to start a whole new section, but this article is Google #1 for "non-credible concept". I know its a direct phrase lifted from the source, but could it perhaps be worded differently or sourced alternatively.--ZayZayEM (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems perfectly accurate to me, and it is a direct quote from one of the very few reliable sources we have on the topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The real mucoid plaque

Thin apologies to naturopath Anderson, but looks like someone did it first.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"Mucoid plaque" as a term appears to have official use in:

please feel free to add a wikilink to synomous terminology

• Dental health (synomous with dental plaque/mucinous plaque)
• Respiratory medicine [10]
• Connective tissue [11]
• Cardiopulmonary health (subtype of atherosclerotic plaque) [12]
• Microbiology, in describing colony plaque morphology [13]
• Opthamology, corneal occlusion [14]
• Chemical manufacturing, production stages in gelatin-poduction [15]

Please consider the confounding effect these casual/archaic uses may have in google-verification of this subjects notability.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Your use of dental plaque/mucinous plaque is confusing. Why the addition of "mucinous plaque"? "Plaque" is a common term in dentistry and has nothing to do with mucous or the bowels. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't really verify in what context the terms are used in those books, since I can't access the text. I can tell you that the quoted phrase "mucoid plaque" returns a grand total of zero PubMed hits, at least in my hands. That indicates fairly strongly that it has no independent meaning in the medical world. The word "mucoid" is just an adjective meaning "mucus-like", and plaque is a fairly general descriptive term in pathology. MastCell ^Talk 07:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I get 17 (albeit "Quoted phrase not found"). Most appear to be microbiology culture related. Still no mention at NCCAM, TGA or EMEA either.--ZayZayEM (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Google Scholar. [16]. Still nothing I can see that is especially relevant. Dental, atherosclerosis, microbiological... There is A HISTOLOGICAL AND HISTOCHEMICAL STUDY OF THE GIZZARD OF THE MUGIL sp. PISCES (Tainha) which identifies one 'mucosal plane' as "mucoid plaque"--ZayZayEM (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh my #@$* God. That Google Scholar [17] search on the very first page lists a journal called "Diseases of the Colon & Rectum" with the following excerpt:

"Early super-ficial zones of infarction may be covered by a mucoid plaque, corresponding to the "pseudomembranous" pattern seen histo-logically." Thanks for pointing it out to me. In his book, on page 82, Anderson says that "pseudomembrane" is one of the terms used by medical scientists to describe mucoid plaque in the gut. I'm curious how you could have missed that. MastCell and Fyslee appear to be wrong about medical scientists not using the term to describe "stuff" on the colon walls. Heelop (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You may want to read Anderson's epistle: he acknowledges that he merely conflates existing medical conditions into one. As to psudomembranous, yes we do use that term. You might like to read about Pseudomembranous colitis.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with Nescio. It is case of Anderson attempting to gain validity by using terminology already in use. This is not the plaque you are looking for.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Heelop, where do you find that and on which page? Please provide the link. From what I could read, it's talking about a (1) specific disease process localized to a (2) very small area, and it's used by (3) only two scientists (working together) in (4) one case study. The remaining description of the rest of the colon is what one normally finds, a nice pink colon, without a trace of so-called "mucoid plaque". There is no semblance of a connection between what they describe and what Anderson claims, and you can rest assured that they would ridicule Anderson's ignorance, just as other gastroenterologists and pathologists do. They aren't describing anything that can be used as support for Anderson's claims.

You are really grasping at straws and stretching this all out of proportion and context. Your desperation is showing: "Oh my #@$* God" Sorry, but you didn't find gold, and your glee doesn't end up equaling "Eureka!", even though you think so. If you want to find mucoid plaque, it's easy. Just use the common denominator. Just use Anderson's cleansing products (some others will also work) and then you can yell Eureka! You will have found gold - in your toilet. What a horizon....;-) It's just as easy as recreating a Near death experience/Out-of-body experience (closely related). You can create the circumstances by depriving the brain of oxygen, and lo and behold, you will see the light at the end of the tunnel. Astronauts and fighter pilots experience it when training in huge centrifuges. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Added comment: You appear to ignore our previous debate in which I explained that one article discussing so-and-so does not equate to consensus within the medical community. Second, I pointed out that any article detailing the pathophysiology of certain diseases (remember the diarrhoea in children!) does not establish a circumscript medical condition prevalent among the general public. Both points again apply to this new evidence. 1 It is a case report, 2 it involves ischemic proctocolitis in the patient of middle age or beyond. You may remember we already established that any type of colitis (colitis ulcerosa, morbus crohn, et cetera) will involve some pathology in the mucous membrane.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that you find setting up a straw man easier to do. I never said it equates to medical consensus, and I never said that any article detailing with the pathophysiology of certain diseases establishes a circumscript prevalent among the rest of the people. By the way, it is saddening that you, a medical doctor, think that people with diseases are not part of the general public. Maybe we should segregate them away from the pretty people. If Anderson can't ever connect mucoid plaque with a disease then what is the point? Those two journals I gave earlier on also discuss people with peptic ulcer, people with malignancy and inflammatory bowel disease as well as children (who actually grow up someday) with giardiasis or food intolerance. Heelop (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

What I am saying is that you and your Muse look at all possible gastrointestinal disorders and then assert that contrary to accepted consensus, and lacking any reputable scientific source, these are not seperate entities but one and the same condition: mucoid plaque. Please reread the previoous debate higher up and in the archive so you may better understand your lack of understanding the underlying problem people have tried to explain to tyou.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty simple. Numerous well-described disease states can cause a "plaque" to form on the colon wall. Anderson claims that this plaque is the actual disease. There is no medical or scientific support for this claim, unless you count the fact that a small handful of sources juxtapose the words "mucoid" and "plaque" when describing well-known disease processes.

It's analagous to saying: "Look, I discovered a new disease called Leg Swelling Syndrome! It's been described in the medical literature under a bunch of names - congestive heart failure, renal insufficiency, protein-calorie malnutrition, venous insufficiency, thrombophlebitis - but doctors were too dumb to realize that those are all the same disease! The treatment is to squeeze the legs really tightly to get rid of the swelling."

Anyhow, arguing the merits with Heelop is kind of pointless, not to mention a borderline misuse of the talk page. Anything of relevance to the article? MastCell ^Talk 23:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Independent psyllium source

Google Books[18] Digestion Takes Precedence Over Disease By Anthony Raphael Leon Published by Dog Ear Publishing, 2008

I really have no idea what to make of this book. It has the looks of something self published (ie. I paid someone[19] to print this for me).

Author is born-again Christian (and one-time vegetarian cook) who thinks health is about "following God's design". Has an interesting combination of "this is crap"/"this is not crap", without a real sophisticated filter beyond personal preference and I suspect the use of the internet as a major research tool. His phrasing when criticising of mucoid plaque is eerily similar, I would be surprised if articles like skeptoid etc. didn't serve as his primary basis (maybe even wikipedia). But perhaps that's undue cynicism.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

New source?

This article might relate to the topic of the article, but doesn't mention "mucoid plaque" at all. I'm therefore hesitant to include it. Opinions? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but looking at the article, it is clearly discussing a website about mucoid plaque, and describes it exactly:

One testimonial ad, next to a truly gross picture on www.drnatura.com, reads, "How would you feel if long pieces of old toxin-filled fecal matter were stuck to the inside of your colon for months or even years?" But it's simply not true that waste material gets stuck indefinitely in the colon -- though the cleansing products themselves can form the gels that look like huge stools.

"I've heard my kids say that there's stuff in the GI [gastrointestinal] tract for seven years," said Dr. Douglas Pleskow, a gastroenterologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. "That is the urban legend. In reality, most people clear their GI tract within three days." [20]

I think it's a good enough source and description that it wouldn't be a SYNTH violation. Go for it. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no clear connection with mucoid plaque in either the LATimes article of the drnatura.com website. Typical pseudoscientific non-standardised mumbo. Wouldn't consider it viable without interpreting it beyond the source.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

??? The LA Times article describes mucoid plaque perfectly, and the drnatura website shows pictures of it and calls it "plaque", which is common shorthand for "mucoid plaque" on these types of websites. There is no need to use anything more than a very basic understanding of the existence of this subject to recognize that the article and website are both talking about mucoid plaque. There is no other possibility, and that's not a SYNTH violation. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. The LA article is undoubtely describing the same thing as this article, there is no SYNTH here. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This page (link)) of the drnatura.com has one testimonial describing what is "removed" from the colon as "mucoid rope". Do you think that clarifies what this is referring to sufficiently clearly, ZayZayEM? Tim Vickers (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

An off-the-street 'testimonial' from 'Danae' on a blatantly promotional website. No. That does meet RS standards. And while the LA Times website sort-of meets a general description of what Anderson pushes, it's the exact same synthesis as Anderson going through early 20th century medical journals, finding things that match his malady and crying "Eureka! See, I'm not making this up". Standards, and application of doubt need to be done equally.--ZayZayEM (talk) 10:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

ZZM, now you are really confusing me! Have you even read the LA Times article and the website? Check out this search. The website is obviously describing mucoid plaque, and so is the LA Times article. Do you know much about this subject at all? It's hard to interpret what you mean when I'm in doubt about your personal POV and your knowledge of the subject. If you can make clear what your basic POV is about the whole subject, not just this item we're dealing with, it will help me to understand what you mean in this thread. Right now it looks like you don't understand the subject enough to recognize it (pictures and descriptions) when you see it, unless it actually has a big sign with the exact words "mucoid plaque" plastered all over it. BTW, no one is suggesting that we use the drnatura site as a source, only the LA Times article. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have refactored my comment above to remove some very irritated comments. After reading what follows, I'm beginning to see a totally different interpretation of what's going on here. This just seems to be a big misunderstanding, in which you are just not understanding what we are referring to, in spite of us mentioning it. I'll repeat it again to make it clear. We are not proposing to use the drnatura website as a source, only the LA Times article. The drnatura website, its testimonials, and Glickman, are not RS, but the LA Times article is a RS discussing mucoid plaque. We can use it. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources need to be taken in and of themselves.

The LA Times quotes Glickman (well, actually one of Glickman's testimonials) for "long pieces of old toxin-filled fecal matter ... stuck to the inside of your colon for months or even years". Yes, this slightly resembles mucoid plaque. But the article itself also states "The ads for colon cleansing are also remarkably vague about what toxins would be purged". This is their tactic. They let patients define the results, without actually telling them what to expect. This is a neologism. This is mass confusion. This is chinese whispers. This is not verifiable or tangible information from reliable sources with reputation for fact checking.

There is no difference to making the leap to conclusion that in-text mentions of "old toxin-filled fecal matter" is mucoid plaque, and Anderson using SEM micrographs or early 20th century documents to support his business claims. --ZayZayEM (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood me ZayZayEM. The LA Times article discusses the claims made on the drnatura.com website. On this website one of the results claimed for this "cleanser" is the removal of mucoid rope. Consequently, I think we can use the LA Times article that discusses this website as a RS for some of the claims made about mucoid rope. Obviously, as you say, the website itself is not a source we can use in the article. Is this more clear? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The LA Times article also discusses a raw food program called the "master cleanse" advocated by Peter Glickman. If you search in Glickman's book for "mucoid plaque" link you find that removal of mucoid is one of the claimed benefits of this program as well. I've now found that both of the products/programs discussed in the LA Times article claim to remove mucoid plaque/rope. I therefore can't see how it is possible to escape the conclusion that we can use the LA Times as a source in this article. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Master Cleanse has its own article BTW. Much better, has notable entertainment personalities and direct/specific discussion in the media.

Please, please, please look at your sources closely. The parts of Glickman's book that deal with muycoid plaque are direct copy from his website's discussion/bulletin board. Chapter IV BBS discussion boards are not reliable sources.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know exactly what it is, but you still seem to be missing the point. "Sources" like that book or the drnatura.com website can be read and used to interpret what the LA Times article is referring to. Such unreliable sources obviously cannot be used in the article, but since you seemed unsure what kind of claims the LA Times article was discussing, it is entirely appropriate to look at the websites/books that their article was about and check that these websites/books do indeed mention mucoid plaque/rope. I suppose if you still can't grasp this argument, we could have an RfC on this question, but I am very surprised that this might be necessary on what now appears to me to be a very obvious observation. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Tim here. The L.A. Times is clearly referring to a site selling "mucoid plaque" cleansers. Additionally, the Times hardly makes any exceptional claims - it simply elaborates on the mainstream understanding of these products. The rules are supposed to be interpreted with a dash of common sense, and it seems applicable here. MastCell ^Talk 00:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Since there seems to be general consensus that including this source is reasonable, I've added a quote from this newspaper to the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Prominence of the Minor Viewpoint

Tim Vickers deleted the following edits:

Anderson claims that doctors are mistaken when they say that the mucus layer is needed for lubrication and protection of the mucosal surface. He says that the glycocalyx layer, which is underneath the mucus layer and contains alkaline buffering agents, actually performs these important functions. He says that most doctors don’t know the difference between the mucus layer and the glycocalyx layer even though biopsies studied with the electron microscope demonstrate this important difference.

In response to concerns that his cleanse products might actually create mucoid plaque rather than remove it, he claims, in his defense, that mucoid plaque stools have been described in conventional medical literature long before his cleanse products have been used.

while insisting in his edit summary[21] that minor viewpoints should be given less prominence than mainstream viewpoints. However, wiki rules contradict Tim's claim. WP:UNDUE says “In articles specifically on the minority viewpoint, the views can receive more attention and space” and “may (and usually should) be described, possibly at length” and may “discuss the history of the idea in great detail” as long as (1) it does not obfuscate which views are the majority (consensus) views and which views are the minority views (2) it does not rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view (3) it makes appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant. Also, WP:FRINGE says “Theories should receive attention in Wikipedia in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written.”

Note that both views are clearly labeled, the article is not written at all from the perspective of the minority view, and reference is made to the majority viewpoint. Heelop (talk) 06:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh, this text is written totally from the point of view from Anderson. Tim already pointed out that those stools are intestinal lining and have nothing to do with Anderson's mucoid plaque.

And I just noticed the part about how most doctors can't tell the difference between the mucus layer and the glycocalyx layer. That's gonna need a bit of balancing with how the bowel layer works according to mainstream.

And I understand that those biopsies allegedly demonstrate that mainstream understanding of how intestines work is incorrect? That needs a independient good source for what those biopsies really demonstrate..... --Enric Naval (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As an observation, a glycocalyx is one molecule thick (about 10 nm see PMID 15827378), and is composed of integral membrane glycoproteins. I'd view any argument that doctors can't tell the difference between this and about a millimeter of mucus with more than a little amusement! Tim Vickers (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

While we're quoting policy, I'd direct your attention to "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as a majority view." This article is not about the minority view "Anderson's views about mucoid plaque", instead it is about the general topic of "Mucoid plaque". Therefore, since this article does not deal with Anderson's views as its subject, it is inappropriate to give these minority views as much weight as mainstream views. The majority of the article must therefore deal with criticism of this idea, with Anderson's views summarised, but not given as much prominence as the mainstream, nor presented as a 50/50 point/counter-point debate. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tim's edits here. Mucoid plaque as a concept is adequately described. The article needs to be based on independent, reliable secondary sources to the extent possible. Adding large chunks of material from questionable sources directly affiliated with the subject is a step in the wrong direction, from an encyclopedic standpoint. MastCell ^Talk 18:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if this was a real phenomenon, Anderson's views wouldn't even rate a mention. In this case of a real hoax, we need to briefly describe what he thinks, but his views cannot form the core of the article, or even a major part of the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with your interpretation of the WP:UNDUE clause, Tim, is that the word "view" is referring to general concepts, such as the "Flat Earth" concept, not specific people. Take a look again and see. It was meant to prevent articles on real concepts, such as the Earth, being dominated by pseudoscientific ideas. On the other hand, mucoid plaque is a fringe concept and WP:FRINGE says “Theories should receive attention in Wikipedia in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written.” If we leave out Anderson's details, it will be unproportional. As a side note, it is a well known fact of science that electron microscopes reveal more detail (other than making things appear larger) than light microscopes and that often certain areas of study, for good or bad, receive less attention than other areas of study. Heelop (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

We must always follow the sources. Look at one of the reliable sources that deal with this concept - for example this or this. We should devote roughly the same proportion of this article to summarising Anderson's ideas as these mainstream newspapers do. Consequently, this article must devote most of its text to presenting the mainstream view - that this idea is an absurd hoax. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Tim, but "in proportion to the level of detail in the sources" is referring to all sources not just mainstream sources. News sources were only an example. Heelop (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Our articles follow the approach taken in reliable sources. Consequently, we give most weight to the views of the majority of experts on the topic. You can point to as many dodgy websites and self-published books as you wish, but that will not alter the balance in this article. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tim here. The spirit of policy is quite clear, and has been affirmed multiple times on various levels - Wikipedia covers views and claims in proportion to their representation in reliable sources. This strikes me as an attempt to parse the letter of policy to make an end-run around the obvious intent and goals of the encyclopedia.

I'll take this opportunity to formally point Heelop (talk · contribs) toward the discretionary sanctions mentioned by Tim one thread below. It is my opinion that Heelop has repeatedly and seriously failed to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia. Unless we see an end to the circular arguments and attempts to circumvent policy to promote these claims, I will ask that these sanctions be applied. These arguments haven't convinced anyone, despite their constant repetition. You're familiar with our dispute resolution pathways - you can seek (yet more) outside input if you like, but this is just becoming tendentious. MastCell ^Talk 18:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, Heelop's last piece of wikilawyering with WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE is just too much. My head hurts just trying to read it. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your patience is admirable MastCell, but looking at the archive and page history, this has really gone on for far too long. I'd recommend you started the process towards administrative sanctions - keeping this rather unimportant article in line with policy shouldn't take up so much of your time. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall there being any "process" involved. It just takes a bold act by any admin who sees a problem. This involves an SPA who constantly edit wars and wikilawyers in an obvious attempt to advocate a fringe view. If a topic ban doesn't work, a block might be in order if any further attempt is made, especially since warnings have already been given. -- Fyslee (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The outcome of applying discretionary sanctions could vary quite dramatically depending on the admin. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions

All editors of this page should be aware that this article comes under the set that are covered by Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions. Please read and familiarise yourself with this document. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Time to fire Heelop

See above and history. Midgley (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, starting with a topic ban, and then proceeding to blocks. I also think a CU should be run, considering there are so many IPs who make the same types of edits. -- Fyslee (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Concur. Circular reasoning and ignoring years of comments seems more than a reasonable attempt at debate. Editors have more things to do aside from being patient with the willfully ignorant.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Pile-on support. An obvious case of soapboxing. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Bent on fibres

In this edit, "fibrous materials" has been deleted, although it could be considered supported by the source, while "bentonite clay" is kept, though not mentioned in the source. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's on page 2 of source :) [22] --Enric Naval (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. So it is. Sorry about that.

I've re-added "fibre". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Read first sentance of that paragraph "A doctor reviewing 'colon cleanser' websites noted that a preparation marketed to remove mucoid plaque contains laxatives and bulky fibrous ingredients". Laxatives and fibrous materials are already mentioned as stool bulking ingredients, there is no need to mention that other cleansers contain fibre, as it is already stated.--ZayZayEM (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Victorian hosings

I think this statement may need editing:

"Various forms of colon cleansing were popular in the 19th and early 20th century.[11]"

It suggests to me that colon cleansing popularity was some sort of temporary abberancy. Is this really the case?

• Is colon cleansing no longer popular? (I'd hesitate a "No")
• Was colon cleansing no longer popular before this? (I do not know)
• Is this referring to particular geo-sphere (ie. East US and West Europe)? (I suspect it may be)
• Was there a sudden rise in colon cleansing skepticism after the the early 20th century? (I wish t'were so)
• is this time period considered the Golden Era of colon cleansing? (No clue)

Anyone care to discuss?--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we have some organization here?

I understand that as a controversial subject, this article has a very active talk page, but is there any way we could organize it into discussions related to particular topics and/or perhaps provide discussion summaries for "resolved" (meaning that there was a consensus among the editors who commented at the time) issues or something? It is really confusing and time consuming to go through and look for possible discussions relating to specific statements or sources etc, or to find out whether a particular issue has been brought up before. I noticed numerous discussions with vague section titles and numerous discussions about issues that had been previously discussed. It is prohibitive to improving the article to have to spend hours reading through the talk page just to attempt to find out whether a particular edit one is considering making has a relevant discussion somewhere on the talk page. And the quantity of writing here with no easy way to scan through it makes it more likely that someone is just going to bring up something that has already been discussed or make an edit that has already been rejected without even realizing it. I think this is a barrier to actually improving the article. Any ideas about what we could do to make things a bit easier? -MsBatfish (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I just realized that most of the discussion here is actually from 2 years ago or more. But it's strange, a lot of the issues seemed to never have been resolved. Discussion just seemed to drop off. -MsBatfish (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it was an effort to publicise a service for profit, and the fashion in such things has moved on, I'm not sure to what. Midgley (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mucoid cap. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/report/2004/medinfo2004/pdffiles/papers/5509Soergel.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)