This is an archive of past discussions with User:Orangemarlin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Yeah I got Katie to FA, and I remember the long lists of things that needed to get fixed. Third FAR? I think I'd just surrender after 2. You can just go back to editing your shroom articles. :) OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions08:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Just met you on the Camping talk page, and looked at your edits if you don't mind. one of them, is a bit confusing for me. And I mean I am confused, I'm not trolling here. "[..] push a right wing agenda, including publishing AIDS denialism". What exactly is "right wing" about AIDS denialism? I'm not American, so I'm probably missing some major cultural things, but "our" right wing does not "deny" AIDS. Could you elaborate a bit more? What agenda do right-wingers have that is helped by denying AIDS? Joepnl (talk) 02:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Camping? You mean the dude that fucked up the prediction for the end of the world? LOL. Anyways, our right wing denies anything that has to do with science. Global warming. Evolution. AIDS. The journal has an awful anti-science bent with an agenda. It's against the CDC, for example, for some very odd reasons. The problem with the journal is that editors here will use it to further their POV edits, but it doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Anyways, you'll not that anyone who tries to use them will probably get their edits reverted, so I'm just helping the editor understand that AIDS denialism has absolutely no real science behind it. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions03:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
If I may, the right wing is generally skeptical of any claims that have government support and especially government-industry cooperation. The left actually shares this in some spheres as well, though the left usually points to military-industrial rather than medical-industrial issues. The AIDS hypothesis resonates with some on the far right because it tells a story which smacks of government hyping an answer, directing gobs of funding at it, and generally not being successful despite other promising research avenues which are usually pursued by an iconoclastic scientist somewhere outside the US where regulation is more lax. That's the story. The far left also has some sympathies with AIDS denialism, but in a much less conspiratorial vein, and not dissimilar from the Austism denialism dynamic. The only remotely plausible (I mean remotely logical not remotely supported) alternative to the HIV-AIDS connection involves environmental-species factors such as nutrition, inflammation, and immune response. Those are themes that the left loves since it suggests we can control our illnesses with more tai chi and organic food. I'm sure a few fringe homosexuals also find it a liberating notion that the 'Gay disease' (circa 1980) was not so much about unprotected anal sex, but unprotected sex mixed with vicious cocktails of drugs. That changes the story from 'we were immoral' (the old canard) to 'we partied too hard', which the left finds easier to swallow. 2c. Ocaasic16:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't conflate "skepticism", which is based on a scientific analysis, with "denialism" which is based on politics, personal beliefs, and malformed logic. The US right wing are denialists on a wide range of issues, whether it's global warming, evolution, or gays are incapable of raising children. The left wing has it's own group of denialists, including the anti-vaccinationists, new age believers, homeopathy, and a wide range of other things. Of course, these are highly generalized, as I know a few right wingers who consider evolution and global warming to be well-supported by science. I've never heard of this Autism denialism, but I tend to ignore conspiracies. And there is no evidence for alternatives to the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. You're using the logic that denialists always use, that is, say something and state that it may exist. Sure, maybe the teapot floating on the far side of the moon is putting out some chemical that causes AIDS, and ask me to disprove it. Yes, I've seen on Wikipedia people who are afflicted with diseases become advocates of many wild ass theories of their disease and treatment I know there's a psychiatric term for these people, but for me, it's advocacy over evidence. One more thing, don't excuse the wild right wing denialism by stating the existence of a left wing denialism. In general, as shown by polls, Republicans believe in Creationism by a huge majority. In general, most lefties, though they have their own crazy beliefs about science, accept the biggies like evolution, global warming, etc. The right wing is far worse in it's anti-science attitude. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions16:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that the right wing is more anti-science than the left wing is. I don't know about AIDS-denial in the US, but here it's a fringe thing (adoption by gays and evolution too btw). I can't imagine that pretty much half of the US population, "the right-wingers", don't believe AIDS exists. Global Warming might be a valid scientific theory. In my experience, right-wingers are usually pointing out that there are certain obvious flaws in it. Though I'm not an expert in this area, I'm convinced that the embracing of this theory by the left has more to do with prior thinking about policies about cars etc. than a sudden insight. After the earthquake in Haiti, a left wing member of parliament tweeted "we should really do something about climate change now". Another example is nuclear energy where the discussion is not scientific at all. Scientific would be: how many deaths per joule, where nuclear energy wins by a landslide against any other method of producing electricity. Left-wing response: you can't use that. Nuclear=scary, that's enough. That doesn't sound not very scientific to me. I'm not going to spell out the tens of examples I know of, but my gut feeling is that if you would actually measure the scientificness of arguments used by both left and right, the right would win. Apart from that, I'm curious about the US mindset, so to speak. Could you tell me what your wildest guess is how many people in the US don't buy Global warming, evolution or AIDS? Joepnl (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Skepticism means denialism in this context, though it's on a spectrum. Also, I wasn't saying 'this could be true', just 'here's the story they tell, it's not impossible on its face'. Don't be afraid of speaking about ideas; ideas are different from valid theories.
The left is just as bad when it comes to skepticism about corporations and corporate medicine, especially with homeopathy, vaccines, and autism, as you mentioned. Some might also say that the left is deluded about prospects for peace through diplomacy, though I think that's more of a philosophical than scientific subject. The right you are referring to is not the 'far right' but the 'religious right', which denies science for its own reasons and just finds overlap with the far anti-government-power right on issues of regulation and funding. Conservative/evangelical Christians are the lurking variable in 'far right', so better to pinpoint it. IMO, it's not much use to try and blame bad thinking on groups. Ideas should succeed and fail on their own merits, not the proclivities or affiliations of their adherents and detractors. Ocaasic00:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
AIDS denialism appeals to extreme elements from both the political right and left. On the right, a lot of the (initial) denialism wasn't anti-science, really, so much as homophobia. Essentially, the argument was that AIDS was caused directly by what people on the right like to term "the gay lifestyle", rather than by a virus that could also infect heterosexuals, hemophiliacs, and children. Duesberg himself was initially treated as a hero by the gay community, for standing up to a scientific establishment which (it was felt at the time) hadn't adequately prioritized HIV/AIDS research. But Duesberg's support quickly dried up as he made a series of statements perceived as homophobic, at which point he became closely identified with a subculture of right-wing ideologues. The best description of the relationship between AIDS denialism and the political right is in Impure Science, by Steven Epstein. On the left, it's the usual blend of muddled postmodernism and knee-jerk anti-authoritarianism. To be clear, most people in America understand that HIV causes AIDS, regardless of their political orientation. MastCellTalk20:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks all for your interesting information. If you really want to know something talk pages are way more interesting than the official namespace. I can imagine a meta-wikipedia listing all dissenting opinions which are much more interesting than the official article but can only be found on talk pages since "consensus", NPOV and "Original research" is such a major censor. Joepnl (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC).
First, I agree with you in principle on the underlying issue: extended demographic data doesn't need to go in the Utah article unless it's supported by reliable sources, and even then it might not warrant inclusion.
That said, I disagree with your style in comments and especially in the edit summaries. Even in the course of kicking somebody to the curb—be it handing out an indefinite block on-Wiki or ejecting a coach from a game off-Wiki—I find it better to treat them with far more respect than they deserve. We may find ourselves dealing the lowest of the low—people on the Group W bench with Arlo Guthrie in "Alice's Restaurant", patrons of the Mos Eisley spaceport, or season ticket holders at East 161st and River Avenue, The Bronx—but there's absolutely no reason to lower ourselves to their level in the course of dealing with them. Besides, the calmer we stay, the bigger of fools they show themselves to be if they go off on a tirade. —C.Fred (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I don't think Utah is a very contentious article, and I wasn't worried about much. All I was doing was supporting the removal of Chamber of Commerce information that the dear Comrade had removed, since it represented the will of the elite. The edit summaries were there as reminder for the local theocracy. It was very passive aggressive. :) OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions21:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Milikguay (talk·contribs) has written a rather poor article about this man, with at least one major factual inaccuracy—that Shapiro and not Michael Behe wrote Darwin's Black Box. I did a little bit of cleanup; could you take a look at the rest of it? I'm especially concerned about the AIDS Denialism part, because of the sentence that goes "Some websites link him to AIDS Denialism,[13][14]though he haven't took a public stand about this subject." Best, NW(Talk)13:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Apparently Shapiro is another form of Intelligent design pusher. I'm trying to figure out what he's saying, but it sounds awfully post modernist. It almost reads like he thinks that the design is internal to the organism, but I'm still reading. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions18:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Two points: (1) The guy has a solid understanding of modern genetics; (2) he is suggesting the possibility of a kind of "intelligent design" of the genome in which the intelligence arises from biological mechanisms built into the cell rather than from anything external. The idea is a long stretch but I don't see anything blatantly impossible about it. I couldn't detect any religious overtones in his essay; on the other hand it is written at a level that genuine ID proponents would find impossible to understand and no doubt they would be happy to quote-mine it to support their claims. Looie496 (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
It looks like he speculated on the possibility of a revival of orthogenesis, hinting at scientific examination of "design" in a way that would have pleased Richard Owen. However, it's very tentative and look at the date, when ID was a shiny new pseudoscience which had yet to be exposed in court. We should really find if his ideas have changed, in the interim I've modified the section and emphasised the date. . . dave souza, talk22:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
dave, that's what it does look like. As I always say, science shouldn't be dogmatic, it should be open to other ideas. However, evolution is about as close to a fact as you can get. The mechanisms may be under discussion, there have been a lot of attacks on natural selection and genetic drift, but they seem plausible and experimentally supported. I am concerned when a theory is proposed that makes us think there's a power beyond our understanding, like intelligent genomes. It's just chemistry. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions23:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Dumb Republicans Again
Medical Schools can't teach abortion techniques. Well, this law will die in the Senate or be vetoed by Obama, but these dumbfuck Republicans are so blinded in their hatred of the perfectly legal and important medical procedure that they fail to understand that abortion is a procedure that sometimes needs to be used to save the life of the mother. Fuck the Republicans. Just fuck them. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions23:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The proposed law would conflict with ACGME requirements for OB/GYN residencies. Currently, the ACGME mandates that "access to experience with induced abortion must be part of residency education" in order for a program to be accredited. There is an exception for training programs with institutional objections to abortion (e.g. at Catholic medical centers), but even in such cases residents must be allowed to acquire experience in induced abortion off-site if they choose ([1]).
Residencies are, of course, largely taxpayer-funded through Medicare DME payments, so they use "taxpayer money" to train residents to perform abortions. Granted, the bill is a political stunt rather than a serious legislative proposal - after all, the Republicans need to somehow shift the focus off the Ryan budget, so they're going back to the most dog-eared pages in their playbook. Still, I'm curious about the reaction from ACGME (and ACOG, for that matter), since this bill would essentially overturn (on political grounds) the basic training requirements set by the profession. MastCellTalk00:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
We know it's a stunt, but I'm sure there are true believers out there who think this is the way it should be. I better not tell the pro-abortion crowd on my graduate research, where a research assistant and I would stand outside the medical school's ob department waiting to pick up placenta and fetal material to harvest proteins and receptors. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions00:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
^Agree to all of the above. But the Obama administration hasn't been very kind to the ACGME either: Pediatrics residencies will have fun supporting themselves at their current level with no GME funding (if that plan actually went through). NW(Talk)01:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Cas, I'm curious about something: The average full time psychiatrist earns between 150 and 170k here, I believe. Is the situation similar in Australia? NW(Talk)02:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Our dollar, which has zoomed to $1.05 US has changed things a little - the Australian system is a bit weird - consultants in hospital earn anywhere from $140,000 to 240,000 depending on seniority, management, overtime etc. See page 38 of this document...and that is with 5 week's holiday and 5 weeks' study leave, but sessional specialists (called VMOs or Visiting Medical Officers) the rate is $184 or $198 an hour. This is all state goverment based (figures are from New South Wales). The federal government funds the medicare system which runs parallel. This is works like a benevolent insurance company - folks are free to see whichever doctor they like (as long as they have a referral from a GP) - here the rate for a psychiatrist is based on per service. Hence the gov't reimburses (pays) a psychiatrist ~$145 for seeing a patient for 45-75 min (usually 50 min), and it is up to the psychiatrist whether they Bulk Bill (i.e. just claim that and leaving the patient with zero to pay, or charge anywhere from 150 to 300 dollars and the patient pay the excess. However the rates of reimbursement are not indexed to the CPI and so have fallen in real terms since the introduction of Medicare in 1983 (and so have bulk billing rates around the country) Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, you could just up your volume and stop wasting time listening to patients talk about their problems... Anyhow, here you have to take a pay cut to stay in academia, and a pretty substantial one at that, but it's worth it. MastCellTalk21:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, research in psychiatry. That opens up a hole can of worm debate I don't have the energy for right now....interesting article. Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
It's a total mess, and I'm just not that knowledgeable about infectious diseases. I've noticed this a lot with medical FA's. People stop watching it, then it just gets to be a load of junk. I think SandyGeorgia does her best to watch over the medical FA's, but she's just one person. I'll give it a try, but I remember how much time it took for my two FA's. It's like writing a dissertation. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions04:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I thought about going to the game, but it was really cold up in the Bay Area. That was just awful, and of course ESPN had to show it over and over again. I hate watching those athlete's legs move in directions that were never meant to be. Like the Joe Theisman leg break. Worse yet, Posey is my catcher on my fantasy baseball team. And it's not like there is a lot of talent out there that plays catcher. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions21:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, he's out for the year, so you might want to start checking the waiver wires. The scariest part wasn't his leg, but rather what seemed like a pretty serious head injury and concussion. Your brain just isn't designed to be bounced around like that. I used to love football - I still do - but I can hardly watch it anymore with the accumulating evidence of long-term neurologic sequelae. MastCellTalk21:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I was so focused on his leg, I missed what happened to the head. MLB has one of the best programs for concussions, considering that there probably less chances of head injury in baseball than in hockey or football. They do a thorough baseline for all players in spring, so that they can make a better diagnosis of concussions. I think hockey and football have serious long-term health care issues for their players. I saw a published article a few months ago that described the decreased lifespan of NFL linemen. I think it was over 20 years shorter, but now I've got to find the article again to confirm that. Anyways, it's amazing how long Carlton Fisk played as a full-time catcher. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions01:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I think you admins drop these notes on my User Talk page in an effort to distract me! LOL Germ theory anyone???? And modern day Terrain theory nutjobs think that viruses mutate into bacteria which mutate into fungus when infecting someone. FACEPALM. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions17:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
And of course, I'm not an admin, and think the world of Arthur Rubin. This because, in a momentary fit of niceness, I put a Welcome Template on the IP's talk page. This is what I get for being nice. LOL. The answer is, of course, not only is there nothing I can do, but even if I could do something, I won't. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions23:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Heh - being "nice" the overriding and overarching policy here at Wikipedia. And of course, the path the woo and pseudoscience :-) Shot info (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
O man - after months of kicking the wiki-crack I've started editing again...................noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Shot info (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I gave it up for precisely two years. Then I read an article, pissed that I wasn't logged on to edit it, then I was mainlining again. I see that you're out of rehab too. :)OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions23:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Sighhh, It's like I'm reliving the past - I've got another couple of editors trying it on that because Barrett is chairman of QW, anything ever published by him is automatically SPS....jeeze, the more things change, the more they stay the same..... Shot info (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
It's June. It's snowing a few miles away. Tornadoes hitting the ground. Sure, maybe in Iowa. But this is freaking California. Yes, Comrade Boris, it is evidence of a Capitalist Conspiracy. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions00:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Dunno, the heat here's been sapping my precious bodily fluids. Of course, it's the first dry week in three months, so I'm not complaining just yet. LeadSongDogcome howl!03:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
OM, you're sounding a little stressed. Let me help you with a little Reiki massage .....(waves hands over keyboard and screen and focusses...)......there, how does that feel? Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Offering "massage therapy" to patients is actually a pretty common way for psychiatrists to become delicensed in the States. MastCellTalk05:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Reiki? That is respectable (it has a Wikipedia article after all) compared to something like quantum touch therapy or colour acupuncture or EMF balancing therapy. I'm actually reassured that we don't have articles on those (though I probably missed them under other names). We do have one on Tibetan singing bowls, which are also used in some therapies. I can understand sounds like that being useful in relaxation and meditation, but 'therapies' where people wave their hands or use coloured lights and/or crystals and claim some effect, makes me really wonder sometimes. Carcharoth (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, whether they hear it in secret or don't hear it isn't central to my point. My point is that if some vandal posts my real name and phone number on Wikipedia and then it gets oversighted, from this rule, anyone is now permitted to introduce that personal information as public evidence for arbitration. Ideally, there would be some language requiring that notification be served in public that the private evidence was submitted and then a redacted version would be placed publicly on the evidence page. For example, post the checkuser results with IP addresses stricken. I think that would be a good rule. But the way it's written is terrible - the way it's written is that the default is that you should post it publicly and if you send something privately because you believe that it meets the undefined "compelling reasons" to send it in privately, there might be a secret hearing to decide whether to use it. --B (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I got your point, and I do actually think some things should be kept secret. But it has to "open", in the sense that the Arbcom has to state that it is discussing B's real name and telephone number, and the fact that he's a VaTech guy. :) It's when you get FT2 using it for his personal vendetta, then I have a problem. So, how do you draw the line? You draw it by stating exactly what can be done in secret. So, Rule #4 gets to be abused from two directions. The FT2's of the world can use it to further their cause, or someone could abuse the system to out users. So it's doubly bad. Another well thought out regulation around here. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions00:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I've just been reading some of the comments you made on that page. Do you think you could tone the language down a bit? I wouldn't normally ask, but I helped a new user the other day who was starting out with editing Wikipedia, and it occurred to me that if they had read what you had said, it might have put them off editing forever. I know that page is not likely to be frequented by new or potential editors, but I think that people who get angry and use language like that may not realise how offputting it is to those reading it who aren't aware of the background here. All I'd be able to say to someone who was shocked at what you said is to say rather weakly, "Well, he is very upset about something that happened years ago, and it can be like that on Wikipedia sometimes, but if you avoid the grouchy old-timers (they are easily recognisable), things tend to be OK." But I shouldn't really have to say that, should I? Carcharoth (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Just adding a note here to say that I had thought the above was a one-off (I was referring to the edits you made here and here), but I see from this that you do this fairly often. It doesn't take long to find stuff like this and this. Could I ask that you at least refrain from swearing in edit summaries? There seems little need to do that, and edit summaries stay on the record unlike talk page comments which eventually end up in archives. I agree that making points forcefully is sometimes needed, but it is perfectly possible to make your points with as much force without crossing the line into using language that you know is gratuitous and not needed. Just because you can say something in a certain way doesn't mean you have to. Carcharoth (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
RfA comments
Hi, I don't think we've met. I wanted to drop you a line about some of your recent comments at RfAs, which seem unnecessarily hostile to me. You are, of course, quite within your rights to state why you think a candidate is unsuited (or suited) to adminship, but rude or passive-aggressive comments only further the impression that RfA is a very unpleasant place and can diminish the candidate's enthusiasm for editing. Also, I'm sure it's not meant as such, but the lack of pronouns in some of your comments makes them sound quite cold and impersonal. I'd be grateful if you;d take this into consideration in other RfAs. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted my original comment, because I just had to read about FT2's bullshit comments, and reminded as to what kind of person he is around here. I'll take it into consideration, but why should I spend a nanosecond worried about these wholly immature and unsuitable candidates? If they can't deal with my kicking them in their whiny asses, then how can they deal with the usual group of trolls around here? BTW, really, you want to call ME passive aggressive? I think I don't make any secret on how I feel about anything. However, why don't you drop by the King of Passive-aggressive narcissists around here.....oh wait, can't mention his name, cause it's a "personal attack". Waaaah. Yeah, that was passive aggressive. :)OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions00:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
PMID 11430454 refers.
Efficacy
Ok, you said this. I suspect you were preaching to the choir, but that sort of sermon's likely bring about conversions you don't want. Anyhow, where do we have sources showing placebos are inefficaceous? Of course they're not the most efficaceous, but the question afaik was whether they are ever ethically justifiable. Brings to mind the whole debate over shoddy practices in control selection for trials. I never did figure out why trial vs the best available treatment wasn't required for NDAs (aside from the whole eats-into-profits thing of course). LeadSongDogcome howl!19:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
You know me, I'm not all that concerned about unwanted conversations. :) I'm not one who buys into placebo effects being a definition of efficacy. They are random, and unpredictable. I think it's just what the junk medicine types use as their last bastion. As for inefficacious, it's a clumsy word, but it doesn't mean the opposite of efficacious (like dangerous or something), it merely means it's not efficacious. And besides, there's no placebo effect across most diseases. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions20:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I just did this, but it got me thinking, which is always dangerous :-) If physicians are supposed to ensure nothing serious is overlooked before referring a patient to a CAM practitioner for placebo-by-proxy, surely there should be better outcome statistics for the cadre coming into CAM practices on referrals from physicians in comparison to self-referrals. I wonder if anyone's looked at this? LeadSongDogcome howl!19:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I am a physiotherapy student and I would like to collaborate on Wikipedya through a contribution.
Hi, I am a physiotherapy student and I would like to collaborate on Wikipedya through a contribution.
I've seen that it is very active in articles about energy and alternative medicine such as acupuncture. I would like to send a review of a technique called Karatherapy which I have got very good references with. I think it could be included in the encyclopedia. I dont know exactly how to write a good article but I could send it to you to give me your opinion and help me.
First, I'm a skeptic, so my critique will be a harsh critique. Second, you can't send it to me, because I won't give out my email address. However, if you want, you can sign up here, and I can show you how to post it to a user page, and you can collaboratively edit it until it's ready for creating an article. Those are my suggestions. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions17:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Boris, you've been suckered by Google. "Karatherapy is a medical discipline which consist in the application of movements and positions taken form the karate katas, positions taken from the karate kata, and any respiratory dynamics and states of consciousness for use in health. Established in the eighties by rehabilitation doctor Pablo Pereda who founded a school in Logroño, La Rioja to spread their practices."Looie496 (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
On a related note, I am planning an article on a novel health discipline which I've founded: osmiorosaceatherapy. It is a holistic, integrative approach to wellness based on the ancient Eastern practice of stopping to smell the roses. I mean, along with the associated respiratory dynamics and whatnot. MastCellTalk22:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
By the way MastCell, if you ever watch Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, there was an episode on some New Age mumbo jumbo using pebbles. The "therapist" picked up the pebbles from her driveway, and made tons of money. I'll bet osmiorosaceatherapy would make you stinking rich, though Gorski might write some nasty blogs about you. :)OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions02:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Who's Gorski? :P Anyhow, the point is to get rich. It's so much easier to profit from ignorance than to remedy it. I'm getting tired, and the lure of the Dark Side is strong. MastCellTalk04:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The best thing about the dark side is that you don't have to have any medical success. Just claim it, even if nothing is happening, and everyone will believe you. Throw a diploma mill Ph.D. up on the wall, and you'll speak the truth.OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions15:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
No, the best thing is that if someone calls out your claims as ignorant nonsense, you can just say they're part of a conspiracy to suppress natural cures. In all seriousness: I have been tempted on more than one occasion to submit a manuscript to Medical Hypotheses (the most cited journal on Wikipedia). MastCellTalk16:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Obviously, osmiorosaceatherapy is worthy of inclusion in the journal. Then it will be a reliable source for osmiorosaceatherapy. Of course, you'll have to add an external link to your practice, so that anyone reading the article will know how to find you. Oh, then we have to add the article Mast Cell (osmiorosaceatherapy) as the notable discoverer of the curative therapy.OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions16:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
And since the NIH has yet to issue a consensus statement about the validity of osmiorosaceotherapy, we cannot claim that it lacks scientific support (that would be WP:OR). Until the American Physics Association addresses the topic, we cannot say that it violates all known laws of physics. If Stephen Barrett questions osmiorosaceotherapy, we need to note that he's a professional skeptic and that he once got sued, and isn't Quackwatch a self-published source anyway? No, we just have to present the positive results published in Medical Hypotheses by the marketer and promoter of the therapy and leave it at that. That's how a serious, respectable reference work operates. MastCellTalk16:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not a miracle worker. They got hit with a double-dose of karma after The Posey Incident: both Josh Johnson and Hanley are on the DL. Bad news. Besides, the Phillies are a machine. They don't even start trying until September, and they're already cruising with a lineup full of second-stringers. MastCellTalk21:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Let's see, Cliff Lee, Cole Hamels, Roy Halladay, and Roy Oswalt, and some unnamed fifth starter (doesn't matter, they have 3 who could be third starters on other teams). You could throw out the the Pirate hitters, and go 100-62. Ramirez is on my fantasy league team. As was Posey. I also drafted Dan Ugla who has been butt-UGLY. But I have Lee and Hamels. I'm in 2nd place, because of my pitching. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions21:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I was also thinking about the apparently greater durability of catchers in the 1970s (Carlton Fisk, Gary Carter, Johnny Bench). I think a lot of it has to do with post-steroid-era baseball. The players who ran into Johnny Bench were mostly little guys by today's standards - I mean, Rickey Henderson would probably bounce right off Buster Posey. And the big guys, like Greg Luzinski, were slow as oxes. These days, you have massive 230 lb. players with incredible speed, like Cousins - there's just no comparison in terms of the punishment that a catcher takes blocking the plate between then and now.
Anyhow, Brian Sabean, the Giants GM, said that "if I never hear from Cousins again, or he doesn't play another day in the big leagues, I think we'll all be happy." Which sounds to my ears a bit... threatening, but I think he's walked it back since. Cheers. MastCellTalk21:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Good point about size. I was watching a video about the 1965 Dodgers, and Don Drysdale was being interviewed. I remember his being kind of tall, but not very big. I doubt he weighed over 190, so he'd be a skinny tall kid these days. Didn't Luzinski get thrown out at first on a hit to the outfield? By the way, Sabean has apologized. He apparently called Cousins, but had to leave a message. Cousins is from the Bay Area, and I think he's not coming home for the winter! Anyways, there might be a sea change in catcher athletes over the next few years. Big athletic types, maybe like defensive linemen. It becomes a fully defensive position, because you can't risk a valuable offensive player there. An strong hitting catcher will be moved to 1B or outfield quickly. Look at Joe Mauer, a great offensive and defensive catcher. But the Twins can't risk any further loss of his offensive skills, and have got to move him to 1B. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions21:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
But you can't really put big D-lineman types at catcher. There's sort of a built-in size and weight limit for the position, because their knees won't hold up. You can't ask a 250-lb. guy to spend 3 hours crouching down, getting up, crouching down, getting up... unless maybe you sell knee replacement hardware. Most catchers aren't actually that big. I think the answer is probably going to be to outlaw certain kinds of hits on the catcher - Cousins left his feet, which would be one place to start - but it's tough to do that if catchers are still allowed to block the plate, since it disadvantages the runner. MastCellTalk21:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, you might be right about the knees of a big guy. And no, I know squat about orthopedics, nor derive any profits thereof. I do have a few breast implants sitting on my desk now, but then again, I'm just a pervert. Are we concerned about something that happens rarely? I wonder how many guys get hurt sliding into the catcher for example. Or jumping on home plate! Sports can't legislate against every contingency, it is sports with an assumed amount of risk. What happened to Posey is sad, but it is rare, and a result of a chain of events that is just random. Still, I think the catcher is going to evolve into a purely defensive position. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions22:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Carter had an amazing arm, and always seemed a big guy, but not by today's standards, he would be medium sized. Oh and I remember Ellis Valentine throwing out Luzinski at first once... Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah it sucks, he was my favourite Expo when I was a kid. I used to wear a batting helmet in the outfield because he did. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
That video you posted a couple of weeks ago (which I loved) about the Spo's centered on the author's love of the Kid. When I was a kid (way back when), a lot of the Dodgers loved Montreal, because it used to be the Dodgers AAA team. I think Tommy Lasorda was a big fan of the Habs. Éric Gagné was a big Candiens fan himself. When he won the Cy Young Award, he dropped the puck at a Kings game, and Ian Laperrière gave him a huge hug. I guess they used to play hockey and baseball together in Montreal. A lot of hockey players second sport is almost always baseball. It's sad that Vancouver and Montreal don't have baseball teams. I used to go up to Calgary to manage clinical trials on new cardiovascular devices (better you Canadians than Americans get them implanted....LOL). One of the physicians had played minor league baseball after college, because it was harder to break into hockey. He was also a Expos fan because A) he hated Toronto and all that it represented (must be some Canadian thing, I happen to love Toronto), and B) because the designated hitter was, to quote him, "a flying piece of American shit." Well, I hate the designated hitter too, but then again, I am not an American League fan. Anyways, as you can see, I love baseball and hockey more than kicking the royal ass out of a CAM-believing editor. LOL. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions20:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Very nice, my Dad had a theory about the American League, and about the DH. He said that Conservatives (in Canada) and Republicans liked them (and the Toronto Maple Leafs, and by extension, the Argos) whereas Liberals and Democrats liked the NL and the Habs... My grandfather was a part time sportscaster in Montreal in the 40s and 50s, so he knew Lasorda and they would talk at Expo games years later. He took my Mom to see the Royals (the Dodges AAA team) play a lot. Apparently he took her to a game when Jackie Robinson was playing and she was a little baby, which is pretty cool. Many of the Expos lived in the same neighbourhood as my grandparents in Montreal (this is back before they were all multi millionaires). I used to play sandlot ball with John Boccabella's and Clyde Mashores son Damon Mashore when we would visit Montreal. Years later, my uncle and I helped Bill Gullickson move a fridge into his house. Ahh back when ballplayers were not steroid induced hulks making millions.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm a baseball geek, but the Mashores are outside of my knowledge base. LOL. Did you see that The Great One's son Trevor was drafted pretty high by the Chicago Cubs. Based on the history of that team, he's never going to sniff as many rings as his dad has. Apparently good genes!OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions01:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, apparently that kid can play. I work with a guy whose brother is married to Greta'z sister. I have all kinds of oddball stories about the NHL that I cannot share in public... I will say this, my buddy's son's bedroom looks like the freaking Hall of Fame, awesome memorabilia etc. Damned kid and my friend got to hang out with Team Canada at the 2004 World Cup of Hockey, I am not related to anyone famous, except my brother the other prof Brodbeck who never went to University, am I bitter? Yes.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
However, there is no reason for secret hearings except under an extremely narrow and defined set of circumstances. And mental illness is a laughable exception, since I contend no one can diagnose any disease over the internet. Unless you're Cla68 who apparently has learned how to diagnose Asperger's Syndrome over the internet. Oh wait, he got the info over an email, and it's only those who oppose his POV on Wikipedia who have that particular form of autism.
Since many weren't around three years ago, FT2's personal vendetta against me is still a sore spot, and I still have no clue why he's still on this project. But if Arbcom allows secret hearings at their discretion, power hungry individuals like FT2 will use it as an excuse to do the same to another editor. An open community cannot allow that.
Good thing that editor is not a psychologist, because that Asperger's comment that guy made that is way way unethical (at least to a psychologist, and I think frankly here too). On the other stuff, FWIW, fucking A Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC).
No, I don't believe he's a shrink. I think he's just some random dude on Wikipedia. However, I thought it was so lame, I bring it up at least once a month whenever he spouts off about anything. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions03:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
"failure of an experiment", what are you talking about?
Whatever. I'm NEVER wrong. I am, in fact, PERFECT. The last time I made a mistake, it wasn't really a mistake. I just admitted to it so that I'd get a date with a hot babe. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions04:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
To be clear, I do think you're awesome (no sarcasm, see my previous edit summary), and I enjoyed your response. As to subtle, reserved for interesting disagreements (or well intentioned creationists), not mistakes. - RoyBoy03:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I just wrote a nice strong delete reason for the original version, but now I see there's so little left, I guess there's not much point in posting my comment. We'd better keep an eye on it though. I have a feeling the author liked it as it was. Bishonen | talk19:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC).
Why thank you Doc. I'm playing around with the Antidepressant#Herbal section. Do these alt-cam twerps ever read the citations? Conclusions based on a 30 patient study published in a low ranked journal from a group in Iran? Geez, I hate to be skeptical, but.....OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions21:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
So ...
A couple of months in, and I just (coincidentally) found my first free moment to check the stats, and look at that, whadyaknow ?? Boston on top, Minnesota on the bottom, and the Marlins in the middle !!! You should learn to wait for the Fat Lady before gloating on my talk page !!!! I'll check again in July, which is about when my next free moment should be ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I have a friend in Boston (who also looks good in a black cocktail dress), who was having a wonderful time tonight texting me about the Bruins and the Bosox. But you are right. That Fat Lady is one fickle woman. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions03:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm with your friend in Boston. The Bruins and BoSox are warming this ex-Bay State heart. I don't think my beard would look good over a black cocktail dress, though. PhGustaf (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I poked around a bit, and couldn't find an instance of DMS discussing this with an admin. The whole admin thing is such a tangle, though, that I could have missed something easily. In any case, the ban is a community consensus, which the admin simply implemented. I'd say that whether it applied to abortion is a community matter, too, and I'm not sure which side I'm on. What's of concern is that the editor's current behavior is of the same sort that caused the ban. PhGustaf (talk) 05:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I think to be fair to DMS, he should argue the reasons why he can edit it, the community decides and sets the conditions. I too looked at the talk page history of GWH, and found nothing. I'm opposed to all editors who use rhetoric and politics to make a point on medical articles. It should be always WP:MEDRS. That ends some arguments, sometimes prolongs them. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions05:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I am uncivil. Yes, I say fuck. But most of you incompetent, hypocritical admins refuse to deal with this shit. I intend to post more. Just don't expect me to withhold personal attacks from these little immature "editors" whose knowledge of the topics in which they throw out their personal attacks ranks right up there with ....oh wait...nothing. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions16:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Gee, I'm sorry, I didn't know that "summarised" is proper in British English, I thought it was just a misspelling. My apologies! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.243.207 (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello OrangeMarlin. While watching the VEI page, I noticed an IP editor updating the article with more recent examples of eruptions, to include 2011 Puyehue eruption and Mount Pinatubo. I made no comment as I thought these were valid edits which contributed to the article. Now that you've reverted them, I would humbly suggest that you reconsider. Although the editor entered no edit summaries and has not linked entirely correctly, I think we could AGF and accept these updates. The eruptions he/she has mentioned do appear to be properly cited within their source articles. But I don't want to tread on your toes and revert your rollback. Careful With That Axe, EugeneHello...09:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
One edit didn't make sense, and I have a personal policy that the original edits stand until such time the changes are explained or sourced. Since it was an anonymous IP with no edit summary, I concluded the original should stand. I see this a lot in various articles, where someone makes what seems to be "reasonable" changes, then they turn out to be incorrect, even a subtle form of vandalism. If you think anonymous made the right changes, go ahead and revert. One more thing, sometimes older eruptions are more notable or even more famous. I saw some TV show where the character was saying "newer is always better". Maybe that's not so true with eruptions. Hahahaha. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions16:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey, my talk-page stalkers. You know who you are. Get off your lazy butts and help me clean up this article. It's non-controversial, no CAM bullshit, but is very complicated. Some of the citations are dead or out-of-date, the microbiology is way over my head, and there's a lot of drug-resistance stuff that needs to be reviewed carefully. It's on an FAR started by editors who seem to like to point out all the problems with the FA, but not really lift a finger to assist (annoying). Anyways, HELP!!!!! Remember, when I focus on an article, I stay away from the whining drama-queens that seem to inhabit this project. You know who you are. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions23:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to focus on tuberculosis for the next few days and let things work themselves out at Trevor Marshall. I think there are a number of concerning issues about the page and what's going on there, but I don't think those issues are going to be resolved (at least not in any satisfying or encyclopedically useful way) in the current climate. Certainly, arguing with the article subject on the talk page with Jimbo looking over your shoulder isn't going to end well (although I do think it was useful to correct clear misstatements about rickets, FWIW). Just a suggestion. MastCellTalk17:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
If I have one due to the trevor marshall discussion do you think that I could include it in the article?
I found this, you might have read it already, but it's from a comment here:
"The confusion lies here: some variants of sarcoidosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcoidosis) involve malfunctioning macrophages that convert the less active form of Vitamin D (25-hydroxy-vitamin D) to the much more active form (1,25 dihydroxy-vitamin D) via an unregulated process, making the sufferers extremely sensitive to 25-hydroxy-vitamin D levels, and making supplemental D3 or even excess sunlight dangerous. Dr. Marshall has improperly extended this etiology from exactly one condition to everything that ails man, and has therefore entered “quack” terrority.
The resolution is probably not, “Everyone should avoid Vitamin D3.” but is much more likely to be something like, “For people diagnosed with some variants of sarcoidosis, supplemental Vitamin D3 is contraindicated as it is much more likely to cause hypercalcemia than in the general population. For individuals who are not suffering from sarcoidosis, supplemental Vitamin D3 in the range of 2000-10,000 IU/day is likely to be unambiguously beneficial.”
I'm just starting my second year of biochem so I'm not knowledgeable enough to verify, but I do know after reading up on TM the last couple days that all of this is ludicrous. I also know the above isn't an RS, I just thought I'd share the horses with you, cause they sure as shit aren't zebras.
Also, is there anyway that this could be a source? If so, it specifically states that he has published no studies, just an essay.
One day, after I get my PhD, I'm going to publish as many articles as I can on quacks, specifically calling them quacks, just so it can be said on WP without being a BLP violation :) NoformationTalk02:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I've been warned off the article because apparently it's illegal to call a quack a quack. Quack quack. I'm still offended that Jimbo has gone all nuclear over germ theory, which was an admitted throwaway minor point of mine.
Yes, if you have anecdotal evidence, in the post-modernist world of science that is much more valid than experimentation, analysis and peer-review. So, I'd add it to several articles if I were you. Just go crazy. You will do well in your anecdotal publications. Don't bother with the Ph.D. In the anti-science, post-modernist Wikipedia, expertise is a lot less relevant than being some electrical engineer who couldn't even give a straight answer to what was on his Ph.D., and had no clue what constituted Rickets.
Yes, as of this moment, there just isn't any reliable evidence about this protocol. None. Nada.
But read this article in an alt-med website. I mean when your quack remedy is even hated by the CAM types, it's the end of the world. BTW, the author of that article lays out a very reasoned discussion, despite having been badly harmed by the Marshall Protocol.
Good that you're into Biochemistry. When I was an undergraduate, we were given this crazy final exam. We were allowed to write down every biochemical equation on both sides of an 8 1/2X11 sheet of paper. We sat down for the exam, and we were given a question that was merely: provided H20, CO2, and NH3, make DNA (or something like that). The exam was open-ended, meaning you had up to infinite amount of time to complete the exam. They brought in pizza, coffee, soda, popcorn, all kinds of sugar. It took me around 8 hours to complete. And because I was pre-med, I couldn't risk not getting an A. I think I lost a good 2 years of my life that night.OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions04:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I've had an offer outstanding for awhile now, from the editor of a reasonably respectable medical journal (not top-10, but MEDLINE-indexed, peer-reviewed, reputable, etc), to write a review article on the topic of my choosing. While I have no particular expertise in vitamin D metabolism, the temptation to take up the offer (and thus provide a Reliable Secondary SourceTM) is powerful. MastCellTalk06:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
NW, that was hysterical. And I'm sure there are some evil professors who thought of those! In my case, it wasn't a joke....I think I had nightmares about it last night. I was writing the formulas in tiny print to cover the page. And I cannot for the life of me remember how I got S into the equations. LOL. Also my biochem prof is very notable on Wikipedia, and I've thought about vandalizing his article. Mwahahahahahahhaha.OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions14:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
In our department we've found that if the committee members sit in different corners of the room, by properly sequencing our questions we can get the candidate rotating at up to 15 rpm. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
My evil admin tendencies™ are telling me that the best way to go about handling this issue at Talk:Abortion is to indef block everyone who I disagree with. But something tells me that would be a Bad Idea™. What can I do that I haven't done already? NW(Talk)02:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Don't ask me. I thought a couple of editors were getting to a pretty good consensus. Your citations seem to support the non-use of "death". So block 'em all. And when they try to take it to Arbcom, just use your clerk powers to put in the queue right below all of the global warming complaints. LOL. But let me look more carefully. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions02:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes you know for a fact that indef-blocking someone would make the encyclopedia a better place, but there's no ironclad wikilegal rationale for a block. It would be nice if there was actually a corps of courageous, sensible admins who handled such situations, but there isn't. And ArbCom isn't going to back someone who does the Right Thing the wrong way. Such is life. MastCellTalk03:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Evil 2over0. Just evil. I remember back in the day when MastCell was a lot more liberal with blocks. I don't think I've seen you block anyone since my return. I don't think blocks work, unless it's for obvious vandals or for some criminal act. Ban editors or ignore them. Everyone games the blocking system, through whining at ANI or WQA, or wasting Arbcom's time. I find the whole block bullshit amusing. One admin actually blocked another recently. And the blocking admin couldn't count, and was completely in the wrong.OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions05:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Blocks work, if they're done right. For me, it's just too much work to deal with the wikilegal complications of even a straightforward block these days. There's no mechanism for distinguishing frivolous wikilawyering from honest, well-founded complaints about admin abuse. In that context, I'm not really interested. Let's say I get it right 99 times - if I get it wrong the 100th time, there will be a mob with pitchforks and torches. On the topics I really care about, I edit (so I can't block anyone anyway). And I no longer altruistically intervene against arrant nonsense or abusive editing on topics I don't care about, because it's just not taking the risk without any prospect of reward for a volunteer website that doesn't value its volunteers. MastCellTalk16:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
You used to get rid of the sockpuppets. I used to think those were straightforward, but now I'm seeing Wiki-lawyering about that. So this is probably why Boris stopped too. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions19:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
There's no incentive to get rid of sockpuppets. The climate-change arbitration case made it pretty clear that you can't expect any backup if you try to tackle sockpuppetry. Identifying socks is necessarily an imprecise science. Instead of trying to work out ways to improve the process, though, it seems like everyone sits back and leaves the burden to a handful of intrepid admins. If their success rate in identifying socks ever drops below 100%, then they'll be mercilessly pilloried for any error - without regard to how many socks they've correctly identified, and without any constructive ideas about how to better tackle the problem. It's beyond thankless - the existing incentive structure actively discourages admins from tackling sockpuppetry. MastCellTalk16:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
And then post statistics about damage to the encyclopedia including huge years old rangeblocks in what is otherwise an analysis of individual accounts at SPI, and noting a high rate of false positives. And then support making it more difficult to block disruptive editors in troubled topic areas. And then let discussion drag on so long that a new Evidence phase is needed to accommodate all the new accounts joining in the "fun". Not that I am bitter about any aspect of that case, mind you. grumble*grumble at least nobody drags me to an AN/I dramafest when I make a copyright block. Yet. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
What about violations of [WP:DONTCHANGETHEFUCKINGSUBJECTJUSTANSWERTHEFUCKINGQUESTION] or [WP:NOFUCKINGSOURCESNOFUCKINGSOUP] or [WP:YOURFUCKINGSIXYEAROLDFAQISNOTAVALIDSOURCE]? Sorry if I vented on your page. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
There is certainly legitimate criticism of ACSH that they might be too much in bed with chemical manufacturers, but the sourcing would need to be a lot better to include such a statement at Front organization. I reverted the edit and added a statement to the talkpage. The other editor is new, but might turn out productive. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Not only Wikipedia
Creationists try to invade real Geology. I cannot figure out how a real university would give a Ph.D. to a creationist. I just don't get it. When I was in grad school, some of the biology grad students were very religious, but they were not creationists. Of course, when I was in grad school, there was no debate that the earth was over 4 billion years old, even amongst the more religious. I think most of the faculty would have laughed out of the program anyone who was a creationist. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions05:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Pharyngula is the blog for P.Z. Myers who is one of the most beloved or hated scientists on the internet (maybe outside of Dawkins, but just barely). If I want to know if something is notable, one of the first things I do is search his blog. If he doesn't mention it, it doesn't exist. OK, I exaggerate. When some guy in Australia (cough cough) wrote a pretend peer-reviewed article that he found fossils on an meteorite, I was extremely skeptical. But Myers took the article and dissected it completely. Put it on your regular read. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions00:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Of course, you have now (as in just now, you've never done it before) outed yourself as a Godless heathen. I can block you for that, right? NW(Talk)03:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I am a godless heathen. And Cla68 thinks I should be blocked because I laughed hysterically at an editor who claimed that I believed that homeopathy was scientifically proven. I think I'm going to revert your edits on Abortion. That should bring more of them out! :) OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions03:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
For all the...endless discussion on the talk page, I'm surprised that no one has reverted any of this, which fills a full page now. NW(Talk)04:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, everyone is just arguing on the talk page, and you just go on editing. That's almost amusing! So, I think that's the first time I've seen notes on a medical article. There are a few places where that should work, I might use it. And should we get rid of that red-link for that dictionary? OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions04:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I dunno, I kind of like having it as a redlink. One, maybe someone will create an article one day, and that would be good. And two, it stands in stark contrast to the other medical dictionaries, which all have articles. :) NW(Talk)04:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
(outdent) Simple solution: create a content fork entitled definition of abortion. Turf all of the argumentation (and argumentative editors) over there and unwatchlist the page. Go back to working on abortion (which still lacks a lot in terms of basic information) in peace. MastCellTalk16:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm just a person who has a lot of sources and too much free time. I know nothing at all about the subject; I shouldn't be the one writing it o.o!
It is a little rather disappointing to see though that of the 19 other editors who have edited the talk page over the last three days, not one has chosen to help out with the rest of the article. NW(Talk)17:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm too busy getting pilloried on the talk page, sorry. I'm trying to encourage civility and focus, and its like the old adage about wrestling with a pig. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice18:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Fair point. About a year ago, I put a lot of time and effort into rewriting the "Health risks" section (I still think that this is better than what's in the article now, both in terms of readability and sourcing). The ease with which Nutriveg (talk·contribs) was able to turn both the article and talk page into a festering pile of dung was a major deterrent to my enthusiasm for editing the page further. That said, I will return to it and try to help out. MastCellTalk20:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
From my standpoint, abortion is just a medical procedure. Once the fetus is removed, it becomes a political issue. I actually never cared whether the fetus was living or dead, whether it was a mass of cells or some sentient organism (which it clearly is not). We really need to split the article in a way I suggested. Anyone who adds in POV comments (whether the fetus is killed or died or whatever), gets his or her ass kicked right out. It follows MEDMOS, and MEDRS. There can be a small, one paragraph section that discusses the politics (at least in the USA, since most of the world thinks this is a completely insane political discussion), which refers to the POV fork. Let those people argue about ethics, morality, and whatever they want. Clinically, an abortion is a procedure. It should be described as such. The end. Yeah, I know it won't be an end.OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions21:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's quite nice. Quality work there. Need to learn how to find sources more effectively; right now my strategy would have been to go to PubMed, type "abortion" into the search bar, go to the reviews section, and start wading through incredibly helpful review articles like "Systematic review of the effectiveness and safety of assisted reproduction techniques in couples serodiscordant for human immunodeficiency virus where the man is positive." and "Expanding medical abortion: can medical abortion be effectively provided without the routine use of ultrasound?" NW(Talk)00:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I avoid google at all costs. There are several blogs that I read on scientific-social issues (not sure what the right term is), and will look up what they might be saying about it. The best blogs always have citations that are useful. But searching Pubmed is the best. I try to create as specific a search string as possible.OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions01:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
homeopathy talk page
Hiya, you just reverted an edit I made on homeopathy. I understand that you might want the reference for my edit, though I can assure you I am correct on this point, and very strange that the standing text is there as its never been the case that 10 shakes is how to do it. Its an extremely poor refernce that is used currently. Could you direct me to the url to talk about homeopathy? Thanks, Cjwilky (talk) 01:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
You're catching me in a good mood. I never ever discuss articles on my user talk page. Did you not read the instructions above? Nevertheless, it doesn't matter what you believe, it only matters what you can verify with reliable medical sources. Also, we do not use url's here (usually, unless we're point to something off-wiki), so you can discuss what you want to do at Talk:Homeopathy. But, unless it is an outstanding citation, don't bother. Read over what makes up reliable sources. Don't reply here, just discuss it on the talk page for homeopathy. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions02:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
OM, this edit is really disruptive for a number of reasons. As an established editor, I think you know how to edit in a collaborative, cooperative, congenial way. Are you willing and able to start doing so? Cla68 (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, no one else pays attention to him, so he has to entertain himself somehow. I guess his accusation that I have Asperger's Syndrome isn't sticking. Laughing my fucking ass off. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions02:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Want to talk about the Matute reference on Pseudoscience?
QG's POV: The source is peer reviewed and about pseudoscience. It states pseudoscience is dangerous. Therefore it's verified. NPOV requires we state as plain fact anything not contradicted by another reliable source (no sources says 'pseudoscience is not harmful; therefore it must be stated as a plain fact). A better source has not been provided (for or against) so we must use it.
Ludwigs/Jojalozzo/partly my own POV: The quote is taken from the introduction of an article on quackery. It's not reflective of the article's focus on medical pseudoscience specifically. Other forms of pseudoscience are not health threats (i.e. ghosts and paranormalism). The quote is not a MEDRS qualifying review of pseudoscience literature. It would be a violation of NPOV since it would give a biased impression and more attention to this view that other sources give it (which is not much). Therefore the perspective cannot be stated as a plain fact since it would overstate the case, and it's not an ideal source since he does not distinguish in the lead between types of pseudoscience. Therefore it should be attributed at least and/or not used until a better source can be found.
Since I'm particularly lazy tonight, can you give me a link to the citation? I really get bored with long talk pages, so I usually avoid Talk:Pseudoscience. I hope you understand. You do realize I have a gut level aversion to anything from Ludwigs, but I'll try to overcome that. :) OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions04:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
You buying? Because I hate saying this, but I might have to agree with the statement you've made above, although I'm still ploughing through your links and Talk:Pseudoscience. Although I consider creation science and homeopathy to both be dangerous intellectually, only homeopathy is dangerous. So, if I'm to summarize it in the most simplistic terms QC wants to use the article to broadly state all pseudoscience is dangerous to health? I've always considered junk medicine (let's call it pseudomedicine) to be separate from pseudoscience, generally. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions05:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm reasonable if not rational, so I'm not as shocked as you are. Exactly, believing in astrology is not anywhere near the same problem as believing Reiki can rid you of your tumors. Here'a pint for your trouble (and any lingering cognitive dissonance) :p Ocaasit | c05:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)a cold one, served a la mousepad
One pint? You cheap bastard! OK, so how do we get QG on board. I think he trusts me, but he might think I've gone over to the dark side. And I'm still reading to make sure you have pulled a fast one. Because I don't believe I have agreed with Ludwigs on anything, other than Wikipedia exists. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions05:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Ludwigs is a great parser, whether you like his premises or not. He helped parse this. For that, I thank him. QG has a literal interpretation of policy, very literal. He believes any editorial discretion is original research and we are compelled to use Matute no matter what the context. No matter that WP:V requires sources be considered in their context in the WP article (and common sense dictates that quotes must be considered in the context of their source).
I think the solution is to write something new, using the sources provided. Off-hand: "Pseudoscience and a lack of scientific literacy is a concern among scientists, teachers, and many professions. While pseudoscience in the paranormal realm regarding superstitions like astrology are typically physically harmless, pseudoscience in medicine (quackery), law-enforcement (psychic detectives), and psychiatry (unproven techniques) can lead individuals to pursue harmful treatments, avoid helpful ones, and expend time and money in the process." That's the gist. It has to be specifically cited (see above), but I think replacing Matute with something will ease resistance. Ocaasit | c05:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Technically, astrology or a psychic is harmless from a pure medical standpoint, but they can be harmful financially (as a major example). So, I would say that "harmless" is a POV that I couldn't support. I'm going to have to beg to differ on your assessment of Ludwigs. His arrogance is off-putting. And his long-winded pontificating makes me want to bill him for every word he types. I like what you wrote above. Terse. To the point. I don't have time to read through megabytes of data to figure out something. I actually have a real life. LOL. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions05:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Edited above draft to be a bit more specific. Life? Like you use IRC? Psh, what is life but a well collated compendium of secondary sources? Don't go getting all gnostic on me. Needs sources:
Draft
Draft (note, this is why i like user talk pages, they're --shhhh-- quiet.)
Pseudoscience and a lack of scientific literacy is a concern among scientists[1], teachers[2], and other professionals[3]. While pseudoscience in the paranormal realm regarding superstitions like astrology are typically physically harmless, pseudoscience in medicine[4] (quackery), law-enforcement[5] (psychic detectives), and psychiatry[6][7] (unproven techniques) can lead individuals to pursue harmful treatments, avoid helpful ones, and expend time and money in the process.
I've got to run out to one of the most awful cities in California for the day, so I can't spend too much time with this right now. But ARe you so opposed to the Matute reference you won't use it? Seems like it work, and satisfy the desire to use it by QG. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions16:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
"While pseudoscience in the paranormal realm regarding superstitions like astrology are typically physically harmless, pseudoscience in medicine[4] (quackery)," Don't you think this is OR. QuackGuru (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I prefer compromise than battles that last years and just get everyone bored. Ocaasi has offered up an opportunity to compromise. I mostly like what he's written, but not completely. To me, the draft is usable. It doesn't appear to be vague. And "poorly written" is awfully subjective. From my perspective, there are lots of pseudosciences that are annoying, troubling, and prey on the weak, but they don't harm directly. Homeopathy, acupuncture, and most CAM are clearly harmful to human beings. We can bring tons of citations for that. The Matute citation supports that. It does not support that the non-medical pseudosciences (like ghost hunting) are harmful to health. Now I laugh at them, but I doubt it does much harm. You're going to have to move to the center a bit here QG. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions00:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Including the main pseudoscience points is NPOV.
The source is practically entirely on the topic of pseudoscience.
Editors seem to have a personal disagreement with the mainstream source.
One of the main pseudoscience points from full text is: "As preoccupied and active as many governmental and sceptical organizations are in their fight against pseudoscience, quackery, superstitions and related problems, their efforts in making the public understand the scientific facts required to make good and informed decisions are not always as effective as they should be. Pseudoscience can be defined as any belief or practice that pretends to be scientific but lacks supporting evidence. Quackery is a particular type of pseudoscience that refers to medical treatments. Superstitions are irrational beliefs that normally involve cause–effect relations that are not real, as those found in pseudoscience and quackery. These are a serious matter of public health and educational policy in which many variables are involved."
The authors summarised the public health issue in the abstract. According to the source pseudoscience is a serious matter that threatens public health. It is OR if we don't summarise the main pseudoscience points because it would be taking the source out of context.
From abstract: "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved."
Matute H, Yarritu I, Vadillo MA (2010). "Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience". Br J Psychol. doi:10.1348/000712610X532210. PMID21092400.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) The WP:V compliant source must be restored and sumarised at Pseudoscience.
The serious matters that are a threat to public health are:
"The ‘Keep libel laws out of science’ campaign was launched on 4 June 2009, in the UK. Simon Singh, a science writer who alerted the public about the lack of evidence supporting chiropractic treatments, was sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association (Sense about Science, 2009). Similar examples can be found in almost any country. In Spain, another science writer, Luis Alfonso Ga´mez, was also sued after he alerted the public on the lack of evidence supporting the claims of a popular pseudoscientist (Ga´mez, 2007). In the USA, 54% of the population believes in psychic healing and 36% believe in telepathy (Newport & Strausberg, 2001). In Europe, the statistics are not too different. According to the Special Eurobarometer on Science and Technology (European Commission, 2005), and just to mention a few examples, a high percentage of Europeans consider homeopathy (34%) and horoscopes (13%) to be good science. Moreover, ‘the past decade has witnessed acceleration both in consumer interest in and use of CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) practices and/or products. Surveys indicate that those with the most serious and debilitating medical conditions, such as cancer, chronic pain, and HIV, tend to be the most frequent users of the CAM practices’ (White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy, 2002, p. 15). Elements of the latest USA presidential campaign have also been frequently cited as examples of how superstitious beliefs of all types are still happily alive and promoted in our Western societies (e.g., Katz, 2008). On another, quite dramatic example, Science Magazine recently alerted about the increase in ‘stem cell tourism’, which consists of travelling to another country in the hope of finding a stem cell-based treatment for a disease when such a treatment has not yet been approved in one’s own country (Kiatpongsan & Sipp, 2009). This being the current state of affairs it is not easy to counteract the power and credibility of pseudoscience."
The threat to public health is a statement made as a conclusion rather than an assumption. This is indeed about the topic psedoscience according to the source: "This being the current state of affairs it is not easy to counteract the power and credibility of pseudoscience."
The Matute reference does not need to be a MEDRS qualifying review of pseudoscience literature. The text meets WP:SOURCES. It would be a violation of NPOV to imply a serious dispute where there is none. Therefore it should not be attributed and telling other ediotrs to find a better source is not productive when the Matute reference is reletively new and peer-reviewed. QuackGuru (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
QG, I don't want to clutter up OM's talk page with bickering. Suffice to say that V requires context, NPOV requires both WEIGHT and that we ATTRIBUTEPOV, which I believe Matute has, and editorial discretion is not original research just because editors are thinking. It's very unpleasant to have you coming in with reams of criticism when a cooperative effort is being taken. Please consider refraining until we have put together a more complete draft. Ocaasit | c01:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Pseudoscience
hey, OM, weren't you notified of the Pseudoscience remedies at one time? I'm looking at the [log, and I don't see it, but I thought Elonka notified you at one point? Thanks - KillerChihuahua?!?Advice15:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
He's there: "Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) notified - Chiropractic and List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts.[28] --Elonka 19:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)". NW(Talk)15:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah the puppy needs to get her eyes checked. :P Why are you asking? And while you're dealing with Hans Gruber's incivility, check out his regular comments about "pseudoskepticism". Adler's being an obvious pseudoskeptic, he thinks that we're so stupid that he can fling that title onto others. It's a personal attack. Ban Hans with a "yippe kay yay motherfucker." OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions15:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
He is being rather rude and accusatory. Sorry OM, my policy is not to block or ban simply because people act like jackasses on my talk page. I'm a turn-the-the-cheek kind of puppy, you know? Although I do have my limits. My patience is considerable, but not endless. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice16:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I know you can't. I just wanted to find a way to use a Die Hard reference with regards to Hans. I think he's figured out that his "pseudoskeptic" meme is only sticking to himself. Anyways, why did you want to know if I was on the list? Have I done something bad???? OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions16:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
If you have, I've missed it, but given that I missed the notification on the list, its entirely possible. No, I'm simply being even-handed here, ensuring everyone is aware. We had an editor almost blocked recently on Abortion because they didn't realize the article was on 1RR restriction - a little communication/reminders would have prevented that. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice16:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the 1RR restriction on Abortion until an admin dropped a note on my page. I think that a HUGE 24 font notice should be placed at the top of talk page. I never read those yellow-box things, which is where most of this stuff is hidden. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions16:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
For once I agree with OM. Not only should the notice be clearer, also how can the block be justified as non-punitive if the 2RR was merely due to ignorance? Surely a note on their talk page would be sufficient? -- cheers, Michael C. Pricetalk16:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Was anyone actually blocked? I was only aware of notification.
I think the Pseudoscience notice is rather lame. I don't care much about the pseudoscience pushers, they bring me endless entertainment, and whenever you block or ban one, another shows up. Why bother? Apparently, Wikipedia is pushing out academics and preferring articles where the subject of said article lies, obfuscates, and produces crap science, and can't produce a single reliable source for their lies, obfuscation and junk science, but because they say it is so, Jimbo says it is so. Oh wait, I digress. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions21:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Fyi
Hello, Orangemarlin. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I've been following baseball for a long time, and I can't remember the last time I saw a team fall so far so fast. They looked like they might give the Phillies some legitimate competition in the NL East - something that's been lacking for the past few years. They have the talent, but something isn't working. Personally, I think it all started with that hit that Scott Cousins put on Buster Posey. It's all been downhill from there. It's karma. MastCellTalk16:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Of course, I think karma is pseudoscience!!!! However, you are completely right, it was all downhill from there. And if they were losing by one or two runs, you might say "bad luck". But they are getting walloped. Hanley Ramirez gets one of those rare huge contracts from the Marlins, and I don't think he's over the Mendoza line. He's on my fantasy league team, and I've had him benched for a month. Our league prevents us from dropping certain protected players (Ramirez is one), and no one will trade for him, because he takes a roster spot that can't be cleared. I've asked the commissioner to unprotect him, but they refused. Earlier this year ESPN was claiming that the Marlins were one of the teams to watch, who might get into the playoffs. Not any more. BUT, they still have a better record than the Chicago Cubs. :) OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions16:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Hanley will pick it up - he's just a talented player in a slump. He'll regress to the mean and catch fire in a month or two (BTW, see our article on regression fallacy, which is pretty good - in the first example, substitute "homeopath" for "doctor" and you'll have a summary of the entire theoretical underpinning of alternative medicine...) :P And karma is a religious concept, and thus not really amenable to scientific evaluation. In a strict sense, nothing bad should happen to Scott Cousins until his next life, but that's outside our frame of reference. MastCellTalk17:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I have two theories about fantasy baseball. One, players will always go to their own mean (Albert Pujols is a great example)), so try to screw someone in a trade by getting their player who is below the mean, by trading my player over the mean. Second, average players on really good teams are much better than average players on bad teams. I loved the article on regression fallacy. Great explanation of the Sports Illustrated cover jinx. A couple of years ago, Syracuse was the #1 team, got on the cover, and proceeded to lose their center to injury and lose a bunch of games. That was a real jinx however, since our center got injured. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions17:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Travels, combined with my better half's compunction for shopping, took me to said venue yesterday. There I wandered past a sports memorabilia store and snapped a pic you'd find amusing, but possibly not suited for wp. If you drop me an email I'll send it to you.LeadSongDogcome howl!18:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Does something like http://www.dovepress.com/nutrition-and-dietary-supplements-journal count as an RS here? It has an articlebut it's unsourced and tagged for notability and I'm unable to figure out if it's legitimate or a kind of low standards peer review. I'm asking because I came across Zeolite#cite_note-11, which is being used to say that zeolites can increase urinary excretion of accumulated heavy metals. Not surprisingly, I looked up zeolite as medicine because a friend recently told me how "amazing it works!" and I was naturally suspicious. Thoughts? NoformationTalk00:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
From my standpoint, a real peer-review journal doesn't work with online volunteers. That's kind of like Wikipedia! I took a look at this article, for example. I kind of chuckled at the results, since there is just so much to criticize, including the fact that I don't know anything about how the data was derived. What kind of patients? Did their weight change? Did the A1C change? Were they on other drugs? I could go on and on. And of course, the tons of other real studies that run counter to these results. Let's be honest, if these authors could throw together a concoction to treat Type 2 Diabetes, it would completely change the treatment of this disease. And if I were leading this group, I'd be putting it in NEJM, Endocrinology, Nature, Science....in a real journal. A cursory examination of other articles show that this is a low-quality journal. It is just a mouthpiece for CAM research. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions00:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's a primary source anyhow, so not a wp:MEDRS. But a quick check of the NLM shows 54 Dovepress journals, of which four are indexed. I wouldn't dismiss all of them just based upon an online reviewing system. After all, who isn't online anymore? WP differs from most publications in having pseudonymous editors, leading to many of our other rules. But clearly that paper is insufficient. LeadSongDogcome howl!06:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I do some reviewing/editorial boarding for a Frontiers journal, they are all online and open access and pretty good. Frontiers in Neurosciensce is quite good. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes to all of you, BUT, Nutrition and Dietary Supplements Journal? I looked at several of the articles and they are laughable, not because they go against my personal dogma, but because they were poorly designed and poorly analyzed. The online stuff is a problem if it's done poorly, like choosing people to review because they have time, not because they are the best in the field. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions20:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. The Frontiers ones are really (in my field, which is all I can speak to, Comparative Psychology) the same set of people that review in traditional journals. I do not know of this Dovepress group. Oh and shit is shit, no matter where you find it.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the input everyone, I'm going to try to source that claim elsewhere and if I can't then I will likely remove that section. NoformationTalk21:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
AIV report
Hey! Just wanted to drop a line on your recent report to WP:AIVhere. While the IP editor did previously receive a final warning, that was over a month ago, and, judging by the editor's history, the IP is in usage by multiple people. As a result, IP editors are treated like a new user every day - they have to receive a full set of warnings if there's no evidence of long-term targeting or abuse.
Hope that helps! Cheers, m.o.p04:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Master of puppets. Amusing name! Thanks for info, didn't realize that. I just saw a Level 4 warning, and given my low tolerance level of all things vandal on Wikipedia, I reported him. Oh well, no harm, no foul as they say! OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions19:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
This week in Darwinism and evil-ution
Progress - a whopping 4% (2 of 51) of Miss USA contestants believe that evolution is a scientific reality and should be taught in schools. Miss California and Miss Massachusetts are the Darwinists, if you were wondering, which is no surprise since those are two of our most Godless hellscapes. Misses Kentucky, Alaska, and Alabama rejected evolution outright, while most of the others took a "Teach the Controversy" line or simply didn't recognize the difference between evolution and the origin of life. See the USA Today. MastCellTalk17:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Not only are California girls hotter, but they are obviously smarter. It is clear that California should just secede from the the rest of the fascist USA. We make up 11% of the US economy, and most of the good parts like design, computers, telecommunications, internet infrastructure, and gaming. Without California, the USA would have ugly cars, using TI calculators to make complex calculations, make phone calls on rotary dial phones, and playing Beer Risk (you know, drink a shot if you lose a battle) on the floor. Luckily, we don't have to rely on Miss America to set the standard of intelligence in this country. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions19:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
This is Miss California's answer from the article MastCell linked: "I was taught evolution in high school. I do believe in it. I'm a huge science geek...I like to believe in the big bang theory and, you know, the evolution of humans throughout time." She likes to believe in the big bang theory? As opposed to believing in the big bang theory but feeling really badly about it? --B (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Eh, that's just semantics IMO. I believe in evolution in the same way that I believe that the milk I buy from the store tonight will be pasteurized. If my roommate asks about it, I'll say "I believe so" but I will still be pretty damn surprised if it turns out that I accidentally went to Hippie Stores USA instead of Trader Joe's. (Also, that's a SoCal company? Orangemarlin, that proves your point about California far better than anything else you could have said.) NW(Talk)21:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
In the post-Murdoch era, the aggregate quality of journalism has sunk to previously unimaginable lows. However, during that time the quality of USA Today has remained relatively constant. As a result, it is currently one of the best available news sources. It's all relative. MastCellTalk22:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Yo Brodbeck. California has a bigger economy than Canada. Maybe you all can apply to be Californians! Except Quebec. They just cause too much trouble. And they smoke too much. And Tabernacs aren't very Californian. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions21:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
As long as this new unnamed country does not have the governator on the money I am in. Think of the synergies, everyone in LA drives everywhere, and we have all the oil. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I changed the meaning of the paragraph to put the Dover School District in a flattering light. My only intention was to move the date and location to the start of the article. I certainly don't agree with the idea of intelligent design.
Given that moving a mention of a date and location to the start doesn't add any references to the date and location, it merely moves them, I reason that it doesn't add any clutter. The only problem I'm having is figuring out a good grammatical way of moving them. I'll have a think before making any more edits, and I'll certainly be careful not to change the tone this time! Thanks for your explanation : )
I'm not sure I understand how this talk page template you placed ([8]) applies to the issue of adding links to other seemingly-related WP articles in the 'See Other' section. I do see by the article's history that there is some kind of long-term issue about the addition of these links, but from my perspective I do not see how their addition would be vandalism or OR or anything like that. The other articles do appear to relate to Attachment theory in some way, but perhaps I'm not seeing how tenuous that relationship is. --|Uncle Milty | talk|17:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Did you do a nanosecond of investigation before you dropped this bullshit on my page? PharmacyExpert is a fucking sockpuppet, one of literally dozens that show up every few days on the article. Now go away, and get your fucking facts right. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions17:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
No one reads the box at the top. It's frustrating. I just refuse to discuss any of my edits with anyone, except a select few editors that I trust. But worse yet, Uncle Milty lacked any information at all, failing to read the vast number of sockpuppets of DPeterson who go after the article, that Dydactic therapy is an advertisement for a crap psychotherapy. Etc. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions18:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
OM, if you really want people not to post here, honestly, the best way to make that happen is to raise less hell on talk pages. Once you react strongly, editors assume it's personal and then come here. If you keep the messages less heated, editors will heed the message rather than focus on the messenger They'll go on their way. They'll leave you alone, if that's your goal. Anyway, I thought it was time for a quick Marlin cleaning. You can return to your gnashing, minty fresh. Ocaasit | c18:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Ocaasi, this wasn't about anything on a talk page. I reverted a sockpuppet's almost every third day addition of an advertisement on Attachment therapy, which is, I believe, very discredited. I filed the regular SSP, the editor gets blocked, and we move on. The sockpuppet master is DPeterson, who started this long ago. UncleMilty did not read anything here, so to take anything seriously from him is beyond my skills. And guess what Ocaasi...I edit contentious articles. Those that aren't contentious, don't get major talk page kerfuffles. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions21:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've done a lot of work cleaning up after this particular sockpuppeteer, and I think you should go easy on Uncle Milty. His question was valid. This particular editor tends to operate by promoting and spamming a particular developmental theory. That's obvious to people who have been following his edits over numerous incarnations, but not immediately obvious to someone looking at an individual account's edits in good faith. Taken individually, the edits don't appear particularly vandalistic, as Uncle Milty noted. The problem is that they're part of a long-term spamming and promotional campaign by a prolific sockpuppeteer, so we can just say as much without giving Uncle Milty a hard time. MastCellTalk18:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Wow. Ok then. No, no, your simple thanks for my many anti-vandalism contributions is enough. Of course, I still have problems with the way this is being handled, but obviously I need to take it to someone with less of a POV issue. BTW, adding on-topic internal Wikilinks is not in any way "spamming", whether you dislike the target articles or not. On the surface, the alleged sox's edits did not warrant your reaction. But then again, neither did my question. Hmm, I think I'm beginning to see the problem. Oh, and I did read your little "Don't talk to me" box above. Sorry, but EVERYONE here on WP needs to take responsibility for their edits. Even you. If those edits cannot be discussed here, then there are places they can be discussed, if you'd like. --|Uncle Milty | talk|18:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Wow, you either are refusing to read or can't read. MastCell explained it. Your other comments are unworthy of my response. It was a fucking sockpuppet. Case fucking closed. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions21:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe if you apologized for unsupported accusations and veiled threats, you'd have gotten a polite response. In fact, my response was quite polite for me. You're too embarrassed to admit you were completely and utterly wrong and that you falsely accused me of some heinous crime to the Wikipedia. In fact, the spamming was advertising. It is a sockpuppet (alleged my fucking ass). And you were wrong. I'll just assume you apologized. Ok, now we can go on. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions22:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to notify me when you submit any of the linked articles for deletion as advertising. I was not wrong, and I'm not embarrassed. No apology has been implied, nor will one be forthcoming. Have a nice day. --|Uncle Milty | talk|22:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. It's always nice when other editors get the hang of the sockpuppeteer and help clear up the mess! Thanks. On a related note - the Dyadic developmental psychotherapy article used to be just a semi-literate advert. When the sock gang was all exposed and banned at the arbitration, the article was re-written in accordance with sources. It's all a bit odd becaue Hughes was an attachment therapist who appears to have modified his views. This much is evidenced by the Taskforce report and subsequent published response and replies. However, the so-called oft-claimed evidence base comes from an old uncontrolled study and follow-up by Becker-Weidman - done at a time when DDP was touted on teh web-page as evidence-based by reference to one unrandomised published study on holding therapy and some other unpublished studies on holding therapy. The whole page does attempt to deal with all this in accordance with sources - including later published papers criticising studies and so on. However, I do wonder about the extent to which the whole thing is sufficiently notable. It is preferable to have an article that sets out the lack of evidence base and controversies, rather than just the websites advertising it, but it's a question of notability. (I am a great believer in having articles on pseudosciences on Wiki by the way. Where else can everybody actually find all the disputes, arguments actual evidence or rather lack of it and the views of the scientific community. The newspapers publish such ill-considered rubbish). Would you have a look at it and see what you think? Fainitesbarleyscribs11:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
How real clinical research is done; and how a real researcher does it
Dr. Faustman publishes another article (well she's been publishing all along) that actually uses the word "regenerates" the islet cells, reversing diabetes in mice. Skepticism abounds. But she describes a scientific theory with underpinnings of real science based on real theories.
Dr Faustman receives FDA approval for a human clinical trial using Bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccine, which is typically used as an anti-tuberculosis vaccine, to reverse diabetes (Type 1 only) and regenerate insulin producing cells. She just didn't pull this out of thin air, relying on anecdote and magic, she theorizes that the BCG vaccine will induce the production of tumor necrosis factor which should block the T-cells which are responsible for the autoimmune disease that causes diabetes. Skepticism disappearing, though the FDA requires her to use a smaller dose of BCG than she would like.
This is how it works. Dr. Faustman presents a theory. It gets hit on all sides by skeptics, because science thrives in the bright light of critique. She doesn't whine. She doesn't complain of a vast conspiracy against her. She doesn't invoke any other logical fallacy. She repeats her results. Others repeat her results. She sets up a well-designed double-blind clinical trial which says it works. Junk medicine can only dream to be so open, so able to make a clinical case.
Based on her results, and with further safety and efficacy testing, we might be able to conquer diabetes in some individuals who have the autoimmune version of the disease. And, just to make myself clear, this will have no effect on Type 2 diabetes, which is a metabolic disease of adequate insulin production with strong resistance to insulin (mostly). OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions21:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
You forgot step 4: Supplement company manufactures "natural", "herbal" product that "regenerates" islets, uses multi-level marketing to sell it to people with Type II diabetes. Uses testimonials from people who reversed (type II) diabetes by using their product (and oh, by the way, also lost 50 lb and started exercising regularly...see, the herb helps with weight less as well!); references Faustman to say that "clinical studies" have shown that the islet can be regenerated. Company makes millions, people in search of an easy fix for their disease point to a small fluctuation in their blood glucose as proof that it works for them. Guettarda (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I just didn't have the energy to write out what Big Herbal would do. They make more money than Big Pharma, because they don't have to invest anything in R&D. Lying is cheap. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions20:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Hold on a minute. Are you saying that Tyco Brahe was right? That we should prefer observation and analysis over dogma? That the earth orbits the sun should be decided on actual measurements not on scripture? That the validity of any theory should be judged on the strength of the evidence and the results of experiment? That real science can save human lives and improve the human condition? That real science must be done in board daylight? I think you're making it up. Out of curiosity...Do you know if Dr. Faustman is dating anyone? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Geez, I forgot to ask about her availability! I guess I'm supposed to be Wikipedia eHarmony manager! But seriously, the pseudoscience pushing crowd always claims that science blocks real results. No, science critiques all ideas, not accepting them on a rhetorical basis. I remember reading about her research a few years ago and thinking she was full of it. But, she published in real journals and answered her critics with more science, so I started to think it was possible. Wouldn't it be great that we can potentially cure some diabetes? Big Herbal could never do this. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions23:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
No, that was me
Er, thanks OM, but that was just me archiving. The removed material is in archive 14, where you can check for it if you doubt me. I realise I may have created some confusion by putting it there yesterday and then not removing it from the current talk until today (that was because I fell into some dull thoughts about what state to leave the page in). All the best, Bishonen | talk21:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC).
Sorry RoyBoy, but I completely ignore all ANI bullshit. It's for drama queens, and power hungry admins who live in their mother's basement. Any rational person stays away. If you qualify under the former groups, that's kind of sad. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions22:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
But I disagree with your intent (although it's not terribly clear, so I could be wrong). A consensus five years ago of a bunch of anti-abortion POV pushers is not a consensus. It's just wrong. You're a smart guy. Not sure why you care so much.OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions23:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
It comes from a compromise that embodied the topic rather than misdirecting it. Five or fifty years ago that remains the case IMnotHO. 2006 changed my position, same for several other pro-choice editors. Viable is technical (needs sub-definition) and muddled as it conveys medical intent for abortion.
I try to be smart... at least when I dig in. :") It seems to me, when its laid out and editors publicly fail to address the verified exceptions to abortion being purely nonviable, it comes down to political correctness. As a rationalist hard-ass why don't you see it? Do you think late-period abortions are non-notable or exceptional? I considered switching sides here, I believe pro-choice have the moral high ground (women are people before fetus'); but without consistency, it is not worth defending viable.
Your analysis matters, skipping an AbadF stone off a word you're not use to seeing doesn't. - RoyBoy01:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Typical of a "pro-choice" position, it is highly nuanced and complex. It's not as simple as the anti-abortion position of "it's a baby, it's being killed". My personal feeling is that human life is not endowed with anything magical, it is simply a very intelligent, self-aware mammal. A fetus is neither intelligent nor is it self-aware, so it cannot be alive, and therefore, cannot die. The anti-abortion nutters are quote mining for their "proof". However, I'm not quite clear on your last sentence. Not sure what you mean, but your writing is extremely complex. Not a criticism, just it's unusual these days. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions01:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
While not a person, it is an organism, and just as a cancerous growth (tumor) or skin graft can die; so can an uterine growth (ie. embryo), and for induced abortion it certainly isn't apoptosis causing cell death. JJL spent days trying to re-treading this, we discussed it for weeks in 2006, nothing new on this issue; and I doubt we will encounter anything new for a while. Encarta used death, and Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary does as well. Then it becomes a matter of weight and medical consensus. Re: last sentence, you do not associate death with abortion's definition, so its presence is unexpected, making it an automatic redflag without due cause. - RoyBoy02:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
How unexpectedly respectful. So left wing manipulation is non-existent? I say this as a liberal, big fan of The Daily Show, and someone expertly versed in the politics surrounding abortion and its distortions of science and bioethics. When a conservative gets science inaccurate, they are corrected right quick (pleases me); when a liberal does in a way that agrees with the status quo, a correction isn't swift, nor loud (infuriates me). - RoyBoy22:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't tolerate left or right wing manipulation of science. Though not broadly accurate, lefties tend to be the anti-vaccinationists for example. Or follow New Age ideas about medicine. I rip them both. I just find Wikipedia to be a right wing propaganda machine, that's all. Why else are experts on global warming de-sysopped or blocked? OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions02:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I Don't Either. Propaganda machine? It certainly wasn't when I was a regular 3-4 years back; I've viewed Wikipedia as solidly leftist if anything; granted the right is more committed perhaps there is a social / power shift I've missed. Global warming de-sysop... does it involve User:William M. Connolley? Note I assisted in awarding a barnstar cluster him for his efforts to maintain stability of science articles, if you have a page/article for me to scrutinize I will do so... possibly informative, possibly not as there are many reasons to be de-sysopped because of a topic your are elbow deep in. To infer "death" is part and parcel to propaganda is to selectively ignore RS (yes a handful) that chose to use it. Medical sources chose differently, instructive yes, prescriptive no. - RoyBoy02:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I had to dig through here to find where you posted. Regarding "death". There are lot of different sources that say a lot of different things. So, we choose the most anti-abortion POV in using "death"? That's just propaganda from the right wing. And I personally do not see a leftist bent to Wikipedia. It is far right, almost fascist in the way it accepts POV editing. Jimbo Wales fighting for that little scam from Trevor Marshall was a perfect example of the right wing ideology. RationalWiki is much more accurate and neutral. Of course, I love what it says about certain editors around here. Cracks me up. As for Dr. Connolley...he got railroaded. Typical bullshit where an EXPERT in global warming is run off by the right wing douchebags that run this place. I believe he's not even allowed to edit global warming articles. Boris has left the building (more or less) because he can't put up with the garbage around here. And civil POV pushing trumps accurate edits. Even you throw around little snarky remarks, because I might have published one error (or even 100 errors) surrounded by 30,000 quality edits. Of course, I'm always suspicious of those of you who make some claim about being "pro-abortion" but....or "believe in evolution" but.....or "homeopathy sucks", but..... Mostly the "but" leads to a conclusion that someone isn't what they claim to be. I don't believe that I've ever claimed to be pro or anti-abortion. In fact, my "belief" is extremely nuanced and extremely well thought out. Of course, teaching bioethics at a major eastern university for several years allows me the privilege to develop such a thought out position. I never claim to be "pro-evolution", but it's pretty clear what I am by my edits. However, I am clear about bullshit medicine from chiropractic to homeopathy....it's full of shit. Well, it might not matter what I think soon enough. In a few days, either I'm going to be recovering on my couch for a few months, or I'm going to be a pile of ashes distributed over the Pacific. In that case, Jimbo and you will have to be honest with yourselves, because you won't be fucking me in the ass about one or two edits. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions02:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Wait, what? Ashes? Pacific? Couch? If something is that serious at least consider Alcor so we can bring you back in a few decades. NoformationTalk03:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Well you'd better lay that couch severely, has it coming. I'd guess 3,000 semi-errors, as a "think" then blurt shit out doesn't qualify as "thought out". :) I'm sure chiropractic has been surrounded by BS, but modern chiro (and physio) fixed my back and neck after a Chilean drunk chick wrote off my car from behind in 2007. I defer to your opinion on POV creep as I'm not involved in the process anymore, though social articles (like abortion) don't seem far-right in the least. Wikipedia undoubtedly needs your quality edits; I count on more ... but I thought it out and you've been wrong on basic elements of the discussion. Abortion wasn't a medical article in 2006 and it sure as shit isn't now; yeah most encyclopedias use the medical definition, because they're okay with sterile inaccuracy with a helping of academic comfort. Medical texts and academic encyclopedias can go through the hoops (or simply presume the reader knows) what is meant by viable and that exceptions exist, I don't see that luxury at Wikipedia. I concede NW has a good thing going with the note section, so maybe I'm wrong there.
RationalWiki is good, [9] however "termination of a pregnancy" doesn't seem to fit the bill for an encyclopedia either.
I've also put in my time on evolution and objections to evolution, which started as a small misconception sub-section by me tacked onto the end of evolution (took me a while to find it). While I appreciate you have other things to focus on, it is a Wiki-moment I recall fondly. End on a positive as a positive outlook is a very real placebo, good luck. - RoyBoy05:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I have a dumb question that I asked at Talk:Abortion and didn't get an answer. If a pregnancy is terminated after the fetus/baby/whatever is viable, is that called something other than an abortion? I'm sure that some places, it's legal to have elective abortions at 35 weeks or at such a time that the fetus could survive outside the womb. Is there some term other than abortion that is used here? Thanks. --B (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
It varies. Late termination of pregnancy, late-term abortion, and post-viability abortion are all terms used, although I believe that late-term abortion is the phrase used most often. All are used in medical and non-medical sources. NW(Talk)02:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Grrr. Don't encourage the monster, she encroaches enough as it is. I admit there are a few supports for the notion that she's the sockmaster and 'shonen is the sock: Bishzilla has been arbitrated, and she has run for office. 'shonen has done neither. But... but... [plucks nervously at her clothing ] .. I'm sure there's something... Wait, I'm smarter! Yeah, that's it! Smarter! Bishonen | talk13:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC).
wait ... wait ... FOOD. There has to be food if the the name "Bishzilla" is invoked. ummmmm ... cupcakes IIRC? — Ched : ? 15:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
See, this is why I did it. Needed some humor around here. And I didn't want any of the Bish socks to think I was ignoring them! (And LHvU....I already knew...I was goofing off...you may block me for 1 nanosecond.) OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions16:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
For goodness' sake, you were so scared you got Nukular to protect this page? Darwinbish, you've gone too far (again). Remember you're only supposed to scare very brave users? I hardly think this abjectpoor guy qualifies. Be nice! Now go fetch those cupcakes for your elders and betters. Bishonen | talk23:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC).
Off topic for this header, but regarding this, I'm not true that distinction is all that meaningful any more. Within the last decade or so that origin of life has come to be seen as less of a monumental event and more as a poorly defined transition in pre-living entities that were already evolving, already subject to natural selection. If evolution by natural selection pre-dates "life", then the origin is life is just one of many transitions. Guettarda (talk) 04:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm almost certain that's what Dawkins said in the Selfish Gene, which I last read when I was a 20 something grad student with a full head of hair! I'd accept the premise that life is a continuum over time from non-living chemicals to living things. You could even think of viruses as being on that continuum. But still, evolution does not describe the moment when plain chemicals become even pre-life things. However, even if it did, the OP of that thread stated that evolution solely describes the origin of life. It's a typical error made by those who don't spend a microsecond studying evolution, but just parrot AIG propaganda. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions05:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm new, so am cautiously making new edits. I'd be grateful for the clarification. W.r.t. the edit on Huzerpine A, I didn't change the reference citation to the Cochrane -- I just edited the comment so that it reflected the concerns highlighted by the review (methodological biases etc). I felt that the article (as things stand) overstated the findings of the review.
I see now that my edit might have appeared to be unsupported, but of course I'm referring to the review cited in the previous sentence.
Perhaps I should cite the review again (at the end of both sentences)?
Did you read the top of this page? OK, I do NOT discuss my article edits here. This question belongs on the talk page of the article. If I'm so inclined, I will engage in a conversation there. If I'm fucking lazy, I won't say a thing. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions07:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
No thanks JFW. DigitalC thinks vaccines are dangerous based on one really badly written and designed article. He has no clue what constitutes MEDRS, even if it kicked him his chiropractic ass. Not worth the trouble. By the way, I was testing out editing with an iPad, saw those edits by DigitalC, and reverted on the assumption that he was wrong. It was too hard to edit, so I didn't bother with any further edits. Didn't really worry about it afterwards. Still think he's wrong and pushing a POV, but I'm not really interested in the article. Chiropractic on Wikipedia ranks as amongst the most POV editing around, including creationists. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions20:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
More misuse of the word "irony", of course. When data happens to fit the model, you don't call it irony. Irony is if someone dies from a head injury while protesting in favour of helmet laws. Guettarda (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I wear a top of the line full-face helmet, kevlar pants and jacket with back, knee, thigh, and elbow protection, fully protective boots, and kevlar gloves. Not only do I try to move the odds in my favor, I should survive an explosion from a roadside bomb. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions00:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, you might take a look at Mathsci's comments on my Talk Page. He thinks the article should be deleted and I should possibly be sanctioned for disruption. I have made a spirited defense of the article and my actions but he remains unconvinced.
I recognize that this is a difficult topic and I have struggled to make it NPOV although it's really hard when most of the scholarly sources (even Jewish ones!) tend to accept uncritically the POVs in question (specifically the prevalence of Jews as moneylenders in the medieval era or as doctors and lawyers in modern times). I would welcome a thoughtful and source-based discussion on these issues rather than one which arbitrarily rejects the topic because of the strong POV among the scholarly sources. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
You do realize when you write something like "even Jewish ones!" indicates a bias on your part that we Jews have secret meetings to agree on what we study and pass along as knowledge. Eric Cantor is Jewish, and I find him a reprehensible piece of human slime. Anthony Wiener is Jewish, and I think he's a complete fool and idiot (despite being more in line with my political leanings). In other words, most Jews disagree about everything, except for maybe Israel, and even then, not so sure. The problem with this article is that the its origins are with a racists, anti-semitic editor who I believe has been banned (but I'm too lazy to recall of the details). I've observed your contributions over the past few weeks. I'm concerned about your bias. And I don't like the article, though it is substantially improved from the original version which was horrible...could have been written by Goebbels. (Yes, I went all Godwin). OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions16:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
You wrote "I'm concerned about your bias". I'm sorry that you think I am biased although we're all biased in some way on various issues. What I don't understand what you think my bias is. Could you be more specific?
I think you misinterpreted what I meant when I wrote "even Jewish ones!". What I meant is that most sources that view antisemitism as bad (Christian, Jewish and secular) accept certain assertions as factual. These include "Jews became moneylenders" and "Jews were over-represented in the professions (e.g. medicine, law, banking, academia)". A couple of sources call attention to the fact that these very assertions cant the nature of the discussion. They argue that most Jews in the medieval period were NOT moneylenders. Similarly, while they do acknowledge that Jews were over-represented, they assert that most Jews in the post-emancipation period were poor and NOT professionals.
I did not mean to imply nor do I think that there is a secret, Jewish cabal that establishes official Jewish doctrine on antisemitism. I do believe that academics can get into a sort of groupthink where certain assumptions are so deeply ingrained that nobody steps back and says "Hey! Even the defense against the antisemitic canard presumes the truth of the underlying so-called 'fact'".
Statements like "there is no reincarnation" or "NO scientist believes in reincarnation" are just too confrontational, because either unknowable or wrong. Just wish that you would hold back a bit: you used to be such a great editor. Peace. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm still a good editor. Just don't give a shit about the pseudoscientific pushing crowd. And NO scientists believes in reincarnation. Find one real one. Well, of course, Lynn Margulis discovered endosymbiosis and is an AIDS denialist. Oh crap. You might be right. But still, reincarnation is full on bullshit. It's intellectual dishonesty and/or a logical fallacy to say that something is unknowable so therefore it might be possible. No. Absence of evidence (where you look for that evidence) is absolutely evidence of absence. We've looked for reincarnation. Doesn't exist. So, you might be right, there might be some douchebag scientist who thinks reincarnation exists, and they would be douchebags. But reincarnation does not exist, because there simply no evidence. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions04:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure there are scientists in India who are reputable in non-biological areas but believe in reincarnation, just as there are western scientists who believe in an immaterial soul. The two doctrines are essentially equal in implausibility -- it's only cultural predispositions that make one seem a lot more fringey than the other. Looie496 (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Valid points. I will admit that I downgrade the quality of a scientist once he babbles about religion or anything pseudoscientific. Once you believe in that magic, you become Dr. Oz who promotes alt-med, despite being a world class surgeon. I wish I could explain the depth of my personal my hatred of alt-med/religion/pseudoscience. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions17:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Question
There are a lot of articles on pseudoscientific alternative "medicinal" practices on WP. Some obscure, like the Marshal Protocol, some less obscure, like acupuncture. Most of the articles open up like this: "X is an alternative medicine..." Why do they not say "X is a pseudoscientific alternative medicine?" Acupuncture I get; I don't buy it, but at the very least it's studied scientifically by some major journals (not that they've found much, but they're at least following protocol). Is this something that was decided upon previously? If not, I think it's time to make some adjustments. Actually, even if so I think it's time to make some adjustments, consensus being able to change and all. Thoughts? NoformationTalk04:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Part of the reason is that sometimes you can't find a reliable source to support that they are pseudoscience. Like my answer to the person above, who spends time debunking reincarnation? Since when a human dies, he becomes nothing but a puddle of inorganic salts and organic molecules, we know there is no scientific/physical process that leads one body to go to another one. Same with the alt med world. So, unless there is a specific MEDRS that supports calling some alt med therapy "pseudoscience" we have to go with the phrase "the scientific community states that XXXX is unsupported by scientific principles and there is no evidence that it works." Or something like that. The alt med nutjobs think that if there is no science debunking it, then, by default, it must support it. That's the belief of some of the pseudo-skeptics around here. However, that's the old Argumentum ad ignorantiam, one of the top logical fallacies. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions04:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey, obviously it is just you and me at this article. What do you want to see here? If you think it would be faster to talk then email me your number and I will call you, otherwise you can tell me here. Blue Rasberry (talk)16:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I tried to answer some of your issues on the talk page. My rules are never to discuss anything on my own talk page, mainly because editors shouldn't have to run from one location to another. Also, my real life stays out of Wikipedia life. You should never request personal information from an editor, that's probably against some rule or another. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions16:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
A lot of science/medical editors keep their names anonymous, although a lot don't. When I first started editing I was told of a physician who edited the abortion article. He was threatened and hounded by anti-abortion types because they had his real name. He was accused of a bunch of horrible things by the abortion terrorists, and lost his patients then his job. Now, I have no idea if this is one of those mythical stories or if it's true, but that's why I don't share my name or any information with almost anyone. So, don't take it personally. I think asking questions at the article talk page and on user pages will get you TONS of help. If you know how to add wikiprojects to the article, do so. Virology would be one. And one more thing. Lots of science editors stalk my user page. I'm going to link the section title, and I'm sure you'll have tons of help soon. :) But I'm still concerned about the notability of the article. I need to do some investigation.OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions17:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
economic antisemitism
I respect your modesty. Still, I lft a new comment here
Below are articles articles, mostly medical but some in the sciences, that promote ideas or POV's that might endanger human life. Feel free to add your own, but I'm watching and cleaning up these articles. Please sign if you add something.
I'd also add ephedra to the list... I did a lot of work cleaning it up and it's not so bad anymore (it actually references the serious harms and deaths associated with ephedra supplements in a way that goes beyond referring to the FDA as jackbooted thugs, now). But much of the same material is duplicated in ECA stack, which I haven't been as successful with, and which I fear gives an erroneous impression as to the safety record of ephedra-containing dietary supplements.MastCellTalk19:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
anyone who wants to work on this complex of article, I'll be glad to help. Time we got to the pseudo-psychology. DGG (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
try Eisner in The death of psychotherapy, Chapter 3 "Cathartic Therapies:From Primal toest". A little out of date but .... Fainitesbarley22:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
coral calcium. I just put in some references, but there is a lot more that can be done. That someone would think that coral calcium can be used as a panacea for all types of cancer when in fact excess calcium can, in some cases, be detrimental to certain cancer treatments means that we should be very careful how the claims of the coral calcium fanatics are treated.ScienceApologist (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The section in question seems okay to me, as it more or less just states the recent research and puts it in context. There might be something to it, might not. However, that study has bolstered support for these people, which is, erm, unfortunate... --Jaysweet (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Below are articles that I believe, along with any trusted science and medicine editors who may wish to contribute, meet the simple test of being well-written, do not give undue weighttofringe theories, and are either WP:GA or WP:FA:
If you are here to read about all of the Wiki-drama surrounding the secret hearings (so secret that no one on the ArbCom knew about them apparently), you can read it here. No editing allowed. One day this will be funny. I hope.
|-
|
The fundamental intellectual flaw of “CAM” as a concept is that it is made to include modalities that are extremely diverse, even mutually contradictory, under one umbrella. Very deliberately modalities which are scientific and mainstream, like the proper use of nutrition, are often included under the CAM umbrella by proponents in order to make it seem like CAM is a bigger phenomenon than it actually is, and as a wedge to open the door for the more pseudoscientific modalities. —Steven Novella
There is no alternative medicine. There is only scientifically proven, evidence-based medicine supported by solid data or unproven medicine, for which scientific evidence is lacking. Whether a therapeutic practice is “Eastern” or “Western,” is unconventional or mainstream, or involves mind-body techniques or molecular genetics is largely irrelevant except for historical purposes and cultural interest…—Fontanarosa PB, Lundberg GD (1998). "Alternative medicine meets science". JAMA. 280 (18): 1618–9. PMID9820267. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
|-
|
