This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
Archive 15
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Valjean. 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.
Hi, Brangifer. I just wanted to check with you regarding the blocked user KBlott. As I understand it (I was told by User:Joefromrandb) that you had expressed a belief that KBlott was using some or all of these IP addresses. As far as I can tell, though, there was never an SPI that officially established a connection. Since there has been further disruption and harassment from several of the IPs, I would like to get to the bottom of who the sockmaster is, and I would be very appreciative for any help you could provide me (links to past discussions regarding the connection to KBlott, in particular). Thanks! Evanh2008(talk|contribs)09:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. The only thing I'm "behind" (along with others) is noticing the socking and disruption. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. A mental case, or just very immature. Obviously a coward. They should just be man enough to create an account and behave. If they'd only abide by policy, they'd be able to make an impact. Even if they have a point, and maybe they do (I don't get involved in any of their fights or topics), their behavior causes them to fail. They love the fight more than improving Wikipedia. They treat it like a battleground. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey Noleander. I'm no expert on this subject, but I was checking out the photo to see if there were others. I had just read the first chapter of W. E. B. Du Bois book "The Souls of Black Folk". Excellent! Well, I noticed that on the image file page, it was described as NOT being Washington, but Will Stanley. That raised my curiosity. The original uploader must have been confused, because the file itself identifies the man as Washington, which seems to be incorrect.
I searched far and wide and found other images which were also purported to be of Washington and Stanley. The body position, degree of mutilation, and the type of object from which they were hanged shows clear differences. Washington was indeed hanged from the rough tree in front of the Mayor's office in Waco. Stanley was hanged from some type of nice pole, not a rough tree. The sources I find that clearly use non-Wikipedia info and images, identify the man hanged on a tree as Washington. The book by Patricia Bernstein, "The First Waco Horror: The Lynching of Jesse Washington and the Rise of the NAACP", (more), describes the lynching in detail, and shows the town square, the tree, the living body being burned, and the huge crowd. The Lynching of Jesse Washington article uses the correct image.
Basically we have a problem that needs correcting. The postcard and portions of it that are identified as Washington, need to be moved and reidentified as Stanley. Right now the file names misidentify them as Washington. That's confusing. [1][2] The articles which use them also need to have the image descriptions changed.
As I said, I'm no expert, but that's the way things appear to me. If I'm wrong, please correct me. I'll thank you for it! -- Brangifer (talk) 05:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I stumbled across this mess at Lynching of Jesse Washington a couple weeks ago, I had File:Lynching-of-jesse-washington.jpg in the article sourced to [Apel, Dora (2004), Imagery of Lynching: Black Men, White Women, and the Mob, Rutgers University Press], which carries the same picture and identifies it as Washington. The it was pointed out to me that [Carrigan, William D. (2006), The Making of a Lynching Culture: Violence and Vigilantism in Central Texas, 1836–1916, University of Illinois Press] identifies the same picture as Stanley. I took Carrigan as more reliable, and also I was under the impression that after the lynching Washington's body was placed in a bag for display, possibly without his head. So, I removed it from Washington for now, but I guess I could readded it to an earlier section about other lynchings. Also, thanks for the edits to the lead, but please propose changes to the lead on the talk page before making them since that lead was arrived at through a decent amount of collaboration. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 06:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Let's split this matter up:
The image problem. Am I correct or not?
The edit to the lead. I didn't realize I was getting into a controversial area. It appeared that the more experienced editor (though with slightly smaller edit count), had fleshed out the lead so as to include details (some nearly exact quotes from sources), so as to give a better picture of the situation. The previous edit was a bit of a "duh" wording. The newer one seemed to describe the situation much better, and I supported that edit against what I was tempted to call an attempt at whitewashing, bordering on vandalistic removal of properly sourced content (the sources do say that), until I noticed it wasn't a newbie who removed the sourced content. When you came along, I gave up and figured I'd let you guys sort it out. I still think it's much less informative now, since it leaves out details which the sources confirm. I agree that we don't have to include "carnival atmosphere" of the event in the lead, which the sources describe with exactly those words. but the basic content was good. Maybe a slight bit of tidying up would be good, but not a wholesale revert. That's too much good information to lose.
BTW, the mayor was even making money off of an agreement with the photographer, who had been prepped beforehand about what, when, and where this was going to happen, and the mayor let him set up his camera in the mayor's office ahead of time, which afforded a great view of a gruesome event. All in all a pretty corrupt and awful affair. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Image: Yes, I think you are correct. There are good sources that contradict each other, though, so I can't say with 100% certainly. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Your change to the lead: A. I hadn't added any information about his possible retardation to the article, because I talked with another editor and we weren't happy with sourcing on the issue. It is well sourced that he was illiterate, but some people from Waco had concluded that since he hadn't learned to read he was retarted. I didn't find that to be clear enough evidence to include in the article. B. I prefer to keep the lead in chronological order as best as I can, rather than a very small summary of the full article in the first para and then re-summarize the article with the next two paragraphs, since that necessarily leads to repetition. So that was my thinking, it's probably best if we move this discussion to the article's talk page.
I'll defer to your judgment. I don't know the history of the article and its issues like do, and I only got involved en passant. It's not a big deal with me. Keep up the good work. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to both you guys for clearing that up. Just to confirm: we have at least two photos in WP that are mis-identified as Washington, but they should say Stanley, correct? Do one of you have time to re-name (move) those images and update their descriptions? I'd do it, but I'm pretty busy in real life right now. --Noleander (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Changed situation! I just noticed something on this particular version of the image:
Note this text: "The body of mentally disabled 17-year-old Jesse Washington after he was beaten with shovels and bricks, castrated, had his ears and fingers cut off and finally burned alive. His body is here hanging on display in Robinson, seven miles from Waco, where the lynching took place. Front: "Charred corpse of Jesse Washington suspended from utility pole. May 16, 1916, Robinson, Texas."
This may actually be Jesse Washington after all. It's the next day, he's been moved, and is hanging from a utility pole, not the original tree. Now, to be sure, let's all analyze the body to see if it's the same man. At some point in time he was dragged through the streets and his head came off and was picked up by some boys who broke out his teeth and sold them as souvenirs. Did it happen after this picture was taken, or is this Stanley? Now I'm confused! -- Brangifer (talk) 06:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Adding to that: the claim that that postcard is Washington is from the book "Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America" by Allen. So we have two authors saying it is Washington (Apel and Allen); and one saying it is Stanley (Carrigan). Personally, I think it is OR for us to try to analyze the picture and re-create events and make our own assessment. We may be better off just relying on the sources. --Noleander (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
If sources disagree, then we have a different situation. If a lone source is obviously in error, we can just ignore them using editorial judgement and discretion (not the same as OR), but if there is significant and widespread disagreement between several RS, we must report the disagreement. I was under the impression that the uploader just made a mistake (OR).
In the W. E. B. Du Bois article, it states that he included photos of Washington in his book, but is the picture we're using actually the same as one from the book, or was the picture chosen just because we had it? We should actually use one from the book, if at all possible. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
DuBois included photos of the Washington lynching in the April July 1916 issue of The Crisis magazine. The magazine, including photos, is online (see WEB DuBois article for links). The postcard photo is not included in that magazine, so that does not help one way or another. --Noleander (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Good! Here is the exact issue, with the supplement describing the Waco Horror, and with plenty of pictures. We should choose one of these pictures for the article(s). We should also use this direct link in our references. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
That sounds good. PS: I corrected the issue date above: it was July 1916, not April 1916 (the latter issue included a photo of another lynching). --Noleander (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct. I have now fixed that description, since it appears that the image really is Jesse. If you have any other insights, please share them. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Page Curation newsletter
Hey Valjean. I'm dropping you a note because you used to (or still do!) patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Blacklisting of fluoridealert.org
* {{cite web|title=50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation|author=Connett, Paul, Ph.D.|publisher=Fluoride Action Network|date=2012-09-15|url=http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/|accessdate=2012-09-21}} This resource is extensively footnoted.
I see that you requested the blacklisting of fluoridealert.org. The reasons why are no longer clear from the records I've been able to find, and so I was hoping you could enlighten me.
The blacklist is interfering with an edit I'd like to do, specifically, to add the above {{Cite web}} of 50 Reasons to Water fluoridation controversy#Further reading. I've asked that it be whitelisted, but was told, bluntly and with reference to nothing more than your request, that they were unwilling to do so.
I've had a quick read of your user page, and I am encouraged that you'll understand what I am trying to accomplish: the topic is Water fluoridation controversy, the reality is that FAN is a core player in the opposition, cited by several others, and 50 Reasons is a succinct, broadly cited, and well annotated expression of the reasoning behind it. As you say, it should be easy to include reality here. I agree, however, I have found it surprisingly difficult to do so on this occasion.
I discuss my reasoning further here. Please join in, if you like. I think the whole domain should be unblacklisted, but supporting me in making this reference as a one-off would be a good compromise. The link to this paper belongs precisely here. BTW, note the authors.
It's been some time since this was last discussed, so I don't remember all the details. It's more a matter of happenstance that it was I who made that blacklisting request. I just happened to beat others to it. IIRC, there was a concerted and very nasty effort by a sockmaster operating many sock puppets, and possibly other people working with them, to violate many of our policies in an effort to literally FORCE Wikipedia to include their POV on this subject. (That tactic will never succeed.) They were pretty obviously mobilized by FAN to do this, possibly from a FAN discussion group. They totally screwed with us, using all kinds of subterfuge and deception to misuse Wikipedia as a propaganda weapon for a private and fringe agenda. Needless to say one cannot fool Wikipedia for long. That's the way it went down. A number of socks were blocked/banned, and the website was blacklisted.
Looking at the essay again, I am impressed that it's still a mass of OR that would fail the peer review process in any decent PubMed indexed journal, and it definitely totally flunks our WP:MEDRS guideline for medical/scientific sources. It's a private agenda that has been debunked and dissed by several governments, and for good reason. It's not good science. It's a very fringe agenda used as a scare tactic.
If you want it to be used as a source here, then you'll need to convince people at WP:WikiProject Medicine. Use their talk page. You'll have to mention this conversation, the blacklisting, and the previous history, because if they find you have hidden anything (and they will), they'll crucify you. Make your appeal, and let them judge the essay. If you can get them to support you, you'll have a much better chance of convincing others, including myself. I have no real weight here. I'm just an ordinary editor, but every editor who contributes their opinion is heard when considering the final decision. Go for it.
Right now there's a serious matter that will undermine your efforts. An editor using IPs from near Israel has been pushing this same agenda. They keep IP hopping, and that's very bad. Each IP is considered a sock puppet. They need to register one account and always log in. That's the only way to be taken seriously. If those are your IPs, then stop editing when not logged in. If they are not you (and a checkuser admin would be able to determine if you're being deceptive or not), then talk to that IP and convince them to register. A couple of the IPs have been blocked and others may suffer the same fate if this continues.
BTW, when you quote me, quote the whole thing. Right after what you quote, I wrote this: "...and it should be difficult to include fringe POV as if they were reality." Your position is a fringe position, so you'll have to work hard. Go for it. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. There seems to be an unfortunate skew in much of what you and others have said, given that the topic is the controversy itself, not strictly Water fluoridation. The specific assertions of FAN, etc, are NPOV with respect to what are the elements of the controversy. That is, much of what you've said is valid withrespect to the topic Water fluoridation, but not Water fluoridation controversy. My position is not a fringe position. My position is that 50 Reasons should be included in Water fluoridation controversy#Further reading, which would in any NPOV sense be incomplete without this essay, regardless of what I might think of water fluoridation. My position is purely a Wikipedian one.
That said, my not quoting you entirely there wasn't intentional, as the reality I am trying to include is fairly obvious: the opposition to water fluoridation is what it is. Again, this should be much easier, not the longer row to hoe one might well expect when bringing their assertions to Water fluoridation. Whether 50 Reasons passes WP:MEDRS is irrelevant here, though any footnotes harvested therefrom and used as footnotes in Water fluoridation controversy should pass WP:MEDRS if and only if they are supporting a medical or scientific assertion. It would not be reasonable to apply a PubMed standard to 50 Reasons as a whole, it is not a research paper, it is an essay. Or are you criticizing the footnotes it used?
The price of ghettoizing minority opinion is making it the subject. This is not so bad, a bit of a safety valve for Wikipedia. The problem is the treatment of this and other topics deemed "fringey": continued efforts of mainstream proponents to further beat it into submission by denying access to sources, including declaring subtopics unnotable. Example, Electric universe, which should be a proper topic in its own right, with its own small ecosystem of topics on ideas, people, and events, but is instead fractured across articles on a few authors grudgingly acknowleged as having achieved notability by having moved a few books. This beating into submission is itself highly POV.
It is unwikipedian where Wikipedia is inadaquate as an aid to study topics declared fringe by those who disapprove of their study. I find this annoying not as a proponent myself, but as someone who in the first instance refers to Wikipedia even (or perhaps especially) on something fringey, then has to fill in various inexplicable gaps by googling elsewhere, then finds irrational roadblocks in bringing seemingly obvious things back, due to some previous admin-involved battle. It is pernicious, and it is increasingly difficult to make even simple contributions.
Finally, I note you say above, They were pretty obviously mobilized by FAN to do this, possibly from a FAN discussion group. Why is this obvious? Consider the likelihood of, say, NORML doing something like this, i.e. very unlikely. I think FAN itself deserves a similar benefit of the doubt, unless there is very clear evidence to the contrary.
As for myself, I was just happening by and found a problem, which I thought could be quickly solved by adding a citation. I have no idea about anyone else. I don't edit from IPs (unless I forget when fixing a typo from my phone). Patiently whittling away at such obstacles where they shouldn't exist is better for the encyclopedia than simply giving up. Adding this citation should not be so hard, not by a longshot.
I know your intentions on the whitelist are in the right place. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you! Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 04:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
As someone trying to add neither spam nor nonsense, I'd feel better about joining in the glow of all this, if my simple request were not still- inexplicably- unfulfilled. -SM01:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the essay again, I am impressed that it's still a mass of OR that would fail the peer review process in any decent PubMed indexed journal, and it definitely totally flunks our WP:MEDRS guideline for medical/scientific sources. It's a private agenda that has been debunked and dissed by several governments, and for good reason. It's not good science. It's a very fringe agenda used as a scare tactic. -- Brangifer
”
Let's ignore that the majority of governments do not fluoridate, and that the public consistently support this private agenda when asked, and concentrate on the sources. You suggest that I run this past WP:WikiProject Medicine to seek their blessing. Help save us some time: below are the citations from 50 Reasons. Which of these stood out to you as failing WP:MEDRS?
Hide wall of references
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
References
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (1993). Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride, and Fluorine (F). U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Public Health Service. ATSDR/TP-91/17.
Alarcon-Herrera MT, et al. (2001). Well Water Fluoride, Dental fluorosis, Bone Fractures in the Guadiana Valley of Mexico. Fluoride. 34(2): 139-149.
Allain P, et al. (1996). Enhancement of aluminum digestive absorption by fluoride in rats. Research Communications in Molecular Pathology and Pharmacology. 91: 225-31.
An J, et al. (1992). The effects of high fluoride on the level of intelligence of primary and secondary students. Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases 7(2):93-94.
Armfield JM and Spencer AJ (2004). Consumption of Nonpublic Water: Implications for Children’s Caries Experience,” Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. 32(4): 283–96
Arnold HA. (1980). Letter to Dr. Ernest Newbrun. May 28, 1980. http://www DOT fluoridealert DOT org/uc-davis.htm
Awadia AK, et al. (2002). Caries experience and caries predictors – a study of Tanzanian children consuming drinking water with different fluoride concentrations. Clinical Oral Investigations. (2002) 6:98-103.
Bachinskii PP, et al. (1985) Action of the body fluorine of healthy persons and thyroidopathy patients on the function of hypophyseal-thyroid the system. Probl Endokrinol (Mosk) 31: 25-9.
Barbier O. (2010) Molecular mechanisms of fluoride toxicity. Chemico-Biological Interactions. 188: 319–333.
Barnes GP, et al. (1992). Ethnicity, location, age, and fluoridation factors in baby bottle tooth decay and caries prevalence of Head Start children. Public Health Reports. 107: 167-73.
Barot VV. (1998). Occurrence of endemic fluorosis in human population of North Gujarat, India: human health risk. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 61: 303-10.
Bassin EB. (2001). “Association Between Fluoride in Drinking Water During Growth and Development and the Incidence of Osteosarcoma for Children and Adolescents,” DMSc thesis, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
Bassin EB et al. (2006). Age-specific Fluoride Exposure in Drinking Water and Osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes and Control. 17 (4): 421–28.
Bayley TA, et al. (1990). Fluoride-induced fractures: relation to osteogenic effect. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.5(Suppl 1):S217-22.
Beltrán-Aguilar ED et al. (2010). Prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis in the United States, 1999-2004. NCHS DataBrief No. 53. U.S. DHHS, CDC, National Center for Health Statistics.
Beltrán-Aguilar ED et al. (2005). Surveillance for dental caries, dental sealants, tooth retention, endentulism, and enamel fluorosis—United States, 1988- 1994 and 1999-2002. CDC, MMWR, Surveillance Summaries, August 26, vol. 54, No SS-3, pp. 1-44. See Table 23.
Bentley EM, et al. (1999). Fluoride ingestion from toothpaste by young children. British Dental Journal. 186: 460-2.
Bhatnagar M, et al. (2002). Neurotoxicity of fluoride: neurodegeneration in hippocampus of female mice. Indian Journalof Experimental Biology. 40: 546-54.
Bigay J, et al. (1987). Fluoride complexes of aluminium or beryllium act on G-proteins as reversibly bound analogues of the gamma phosphate of GTP. EMBO Journal. 6:2907-2913.
Bigay J, et al. (1985). Fluoroaluminates activate transducin-GDP by mimicking the gamma-phosphate of GTP in its binding site. FEBS Letters. 191:181-185.
Brothwell D, Limeback H. (2003). Breastfeeding is protective against dental fluorosis in a nonfluoridated rural area of Ontario, Canada. Journal of Human Lactation 19: 386-90.
Brunelle JA, Carlos JP. (1990). Recent trends in dental caries in U.S. children and the effect of water fluoridation. Journalof Dental Research. 69(Special edition): 723-727.
Bryson C. (2004). The Fluoride Deception. Seven Stories Press, New York.
Burgstahler AW, et al. (1997). Fluoride in California wines and raisins. Fluoride. 30: 142-146.
Caffey J. On Fibrous Defects in Cortical Walls: Their Radiological Appearance, Structure, Prevalence, Natural Course, and Diagnostic Significance in Advances in Pediatrics, ed. S. Z. Levin, (New York: Interscience, 1955).
Calderon J et al. (2000). Influence of fluoride exposure on reaction time and visuospatial organization in children. Epidemiology11(4):S153.
Carlsson A. (1978). Current problems relating to the pharmacology and toxicology of fluorides. Journal of the Swedish Medical Association. 14: 1388-1392.
Carnow BW, Conibear SA. (1981). Industrial fluorosis. Fluoride. 14: 172-181.
Caspary WJ, et al (1987). Mutagenic activity of fluorides in mouse lymphoma cells. Mutation Research. 187:165-80.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2002). Prevalence of Self-Reported Arthritis or Chronic Joint Symptoms Among Adults — United States, 2001. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report. 51: 948-950.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2001). Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 50(RR14): 1-42.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (1999). Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Fluoridation of Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report. 48: 933-940.
Chachra et al. (2010) The long-term effects of water fluoridation on the human skeleton. Journal of Dental Research. 89(11): 1219-1223.
Chen J, et al. (2003). Selective decreases of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in PC12 cells exposed to fluoride. Toxicology. 183: 235-42.
Chen J, et al. (2002). [Studies on DNA damage and apoptosis in rat brain induced by fluoride] Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 36 222-224.
Chen YC, et al. (1997). Nutrition survey in dental fluorosis-afflicted areas. Fluoride. 30(2):77-80.
Chen P, et al. (1997). Effects of hyperfluoride on reproduction-endocrine system of male adults. Endemic Diseases Bulletin 12(2):57-58.
Choi AL, et al. (2012). Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives doi:10.1289/ehp.1104912
Chinoy NJ, Narayana MV. (1994). In vitro fluoride toxicity in human spermatozoa. Reproductive Toxicology. 8:155-9.
Chinoy NJ, et al. (1991). Microdose vasal injection of sodium fluoride in the rat. Reproductive Toxicology. 5: 505-12.
Chinoy NJ, Sequeira E. (1989). Effects of fluoride on the histoarchitecture of reproductive organs of the male mouse.Reproductive Toxicology. 3: 261-7.
P. D. Cohn (1992). An Epidemiologic Report on Drinking Water and Fluoridation, New Jersey Department of Health, Environmental Health Service, November 8, 1992. Note: The original title of this report was A Brief Report on the Association of Drinking Water Fluoridation and the Incidence of Osteosarcoma Among Young Males. The word “osteosarcoma” was deleted from the title soon after the report was released.
Colquhoun J. (1997). Why I changed my mind about Fluoridation. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 41: 29-44.
Connett PH, Beck J and Micklem S. The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Powerful Politics and Bad Science That Keep it There. Chelsea Green, White River Junction, VT, 2010.
Connett,P (2004) 50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation (updated April 12, 2004). Reprinted in
Medical Veritas. 1:70–80.
Connett M. (2004). Fluoride & Bone Damage: Published Data. Submission to National Research Council (NRC).
Connett, P. (2000). Fluoride: A Statement of Concern. Waste Not #459. January 2000. Waste Not, 82 Judson Street, Canton, NY 13617.
Connett P, Neurath C and Connett M. (2005). Revisiting the Fluoride-Osteosarcoma Connection in the Context of Elise Bassin’s Findings: Part II.” Submission to the National Research Council of the National Academies review panel on the Toxicologic Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, March 21, 2005 (revised April 8, 2005).
Czerwinski E, et al. (1988). Bone and joint pathology in fluoride-exposed workers. Archives of Environmental Health. 43:340-343.
Dambacher MA, et al. (1986). Long-term fluoride therapy of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Bone 7: 199-205.
De Liefde B. (1998). The decline of caries in New Zealand over the past 40 Years. New Zealand Dental Journal. 94: 109-113.
Department of Health & Human Services. (U.S. DHHS) (1991). Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Fluoride, Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs. Department of Health and Human Services, USA.
DenBesten, P (1999). Biological mechanism of dental fluorosis relevant to the use of fluoride supplements. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. 27: 41-7.
De Stefano TM. (1954). The fluoridation research studies and the general practitioner. Bulletin of Hudson County Dental Society.February.
Diesendorf M.(1986). The mystery of declining tooth decay. Nature. 322: 125-129.
Ding Y et al. (2010. The relationships between low levels of urine fluoride on children’s intelligence, dental fluorosis in endemic fluorosis areas in Hulunbuir, Inner Mongolia, China. Journal of Hazardous Materials. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.12.097.
Ditkoff BA, Lo Gerfo P. (2000). The Thyroid Guide. Harper-Collins. New York.
Dong Z, et al. (1993). Determination of the contents of amino-acid and monoamine neurotransmitters in fetal brains from a fluorosis-endemic area. Journal of Guiyang Medical College 18(4):241-45.
Douglass CW and Joshipura K. (2006) “Caution Needed in Fluoride and Osteosarcoma Study” (letter), Cancer Causes & Control. 17 (4): 481–82.
Du L. 1992. The effect of fluorine on the developing human brain. Chinese Journal of Pathology 21(4):218-20 (republished in Fluoride41:327-30).
Duan X. et al. (2011). Excess Fluoride Interferes with Chloride-channel-dependent Endocytosis in Ameloblasts. J Dent Res.90(2):175-180.
Ekambaram P, Paul V. (2001). Calcium preventing locomotor behavioral and dental toxicities of fluoride by decreasing serum fluoride level in rats. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology. 9: 141-146.
Ekstrand J, et al. (1981). No evidence of transfer of fluoride from plasma to breast milk. British Medical Journal (Clin Res Ed). 83: 761-2.
Ekstrand J, et al. (1994). Fluoride pharmacokinetics in infancy. Pediatric Research. 35:157–163.
Ekstrand J. (1996). Fluoride Intake. In: Fejerskov O, Ekstrand J, Burt B, Eds. Fluoride in Dentistry, 2nd Edition. Munksgaard, Denmark. Pages 40-52.
Elbetieha A, et al. (2000). Fertility effects of sodium fluoride in male mice. Fluoride. 33: 128-134.
Emsley J, et al (1981). An unexpectedly strong hydrogen bond: ab initio calculations and spectroscopic studies of amidefluoride systems. Journal of the American Chemical Society. 103: 24-28.
Eswar P, et al. (2011). Intelligent quotients of 12-14 year old school children in a high and low fluoride village in India. Fluoride 44:168-72.
Fagin, D. (2008). Second Thoughts on Fluoride. Scientific American 298 (1)(January): 74–81.
Fein NJ, Cerklewski FL. (2001). Fluoride content of foods made with mechanically separated chicken. Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry. 49: 4284-6.
Feltman R, Kosel G. (1961). Prenatal and postnatal ingestion of fluorides – Fourteen years of investigation – Final report. Journal of Dental Medicine. 16: 190-99.
Finney WF et al. (2006) Reexamination of Hexafluorosilicate Hydrolysis by Fluoride NMR and pH Measurement. Environmental Science & Technology 40 (8): 2572–77.
Fluoridation Forum (2002). Forum on Fluoridation (Dublin, Ireland: Stationery Office, 2002).
Fomon SJ, et al. (2000). Fluoride intake and prevalence of dental fluorosis: trends in fluoride intake with special attention to infants.Journal of Public Health Dentistry. 60: 131-9.
Franke J, et al. (1975). Industrial fluorosis. Fluoride. 8: 61-83.
Freni SC. (1994). Exposure to high fluoride concentrations in drinking water is associated with decreased birth rates. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. 42: 109-121.
Freeze RA and Lehr JA. The Fluoride Wars: How a Modest Public Health Measure Became America’s Longest-Running Political Melodrama. (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley, 2009).
Freni SC, Gaylor DW. (1992). International trends in the incidence of bone cancer are not related to drinking water fluoridation.Cancer. 70: 611-8.
Galletti P, Joyet G. (1958). Effect of fluorine on thyroidal iodine metabolism in hyperthyroidism. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology 18: 1102-1110.
Gerster JC, et al. (1983). Bilateral fractures of femoral neck in patients with moderate renal failure receiving fluoride for spinal osteoporosis. British Medical Journal (Clin Res Ed). 287(6394):723-5.
Ghosh D, et al. (2002). Testicular toxicity in sodium fluoride treated rats: association with oxidative stress. Reproductive Toxicolology.16: 385.
Gray, AS. (1987). Fluoridation: time for a new base line? Journal of the Canadian Dental Association. 53: 763-5.
Greenberg LW, et al. (1974). Nephrogenic diabetes insipidus with fluorosis. Pediatrics. 54(3):320-2.
Grobleri SR, et al. (2001). Dental fluorosis and caries experience in relation to three different drinking water fluoride levels in South Africa. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 11(5):372-9.
Guan ZZ, et al (1998). Influence of chronic fluorosis on membrane lipids in rat brain. Neurotoxicology and Teratology.20: 537-542.
Gutteridge DH, et al. (2002). A randomized trial of sodium fluoride (60 mg) +/- estrogen in postmenopausal osteoporotic vertebral fractures: increased vertebral fractures and peripheral bone loss with sodium fluoride; concurrent estrogen prevents peripheral loss, but not vertebral fractures. Osteoporosis International. 13(2):158-70.
Gutteridge DH, et al. (1990). Spontaneous hip fractures in fluoride-treated patients: potential causative factors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. 5 Suppl 1:S205-15.
Han H, Cheng Z, Liu W. 1989. Effects of fluorine on the human fetus. Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases 4:136-138 (republished in Fluoride 41:321-6).
Hanmer R. (1983). Letter from Rebecca Hanmer, deputy assistant administrator for water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to Leslie A. Russell, D.M.D, March 30, 1983.
Hao P, et al. (2010). Effect of fluoride on human hypothalamus-hypophysis-testis axis hormones. Journal of Hygiene Research 39(1):53-55.
Hazan S. (2004). Letter from Stan Hazan, General Manager, NSF Drinking Water Additives Certification Program, to Ken Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Committee on Science, US House of Representatives.July 7.
Health Canada (2008). Findings and Recommendations of the Fluoride Expert Panel (January 2007). April 2008.
Health Canada (2010). Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document – Fluoride. Health Canada Dated Dec 2010, published June 21, 2011.
Hedlund LR, Gallagher JC. (1989). Increased incidence of hip fracture in osteoporotic women treated with sodium fluoride. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. 4: 223-5.
Heilman JR et al. (1999). Assessing Fluoride Levels of Carbonated Soft Drinks. Journal of the American Dental Association. 130 (11): 1593–99.
Heller KE, et al (1997). Dental caries and dental fluorosis at varying water fluoride concentrations. Journal of Public Health Dentistry.57: 136-143.
Hileman B. (1989). New studies cast doubt on fluoridation benefits. Chemical and Engineering News. May 8.
Hileman B. (1988). Fluoridation of water: Questions about health risks and benefits remain after more than 40 years. Chemical and Engineering News. August 1: 26-42.
Hirzy JW. (1999). Why the EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation. Press release from National Treasury Employees Union. May 1.
Hong F, et al. (2001). Research on the effects of fluoride on child intellectual development under different environments. Chinese Primary Health Care 15(3):56-57 (republished in Fluoride 2008; 41(2):156–60).
Hong L, et al. (2006). Timing of fluoride intake in relation to development of fluorosis on maxillary central incisors. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 34:299-309.
Hoover RN, et al. (1991a). Time trends for bone and joint cancers and osteosarcomas in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program. National Cancer Institute In: Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Fluoride of the Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs US Public Health Service. Appendix E.
Hoover RN, et al. (1991b). Time trends for bone and joint cancers and osteosarcomas in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program. National Cancer Institute In: Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Fluoride of the Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs US Public Health Service. Appendix F.
Inkovaara J, et al. (1975). Prophylactic fluoride treatment and aged bones. British Medical Journal. 3: 73-4.
Institute of Medicine. (1997). Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride. Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes, Food and Nutrition Board. National Academy Press.
Johnson WJ, et al. (1979). Fluoridation and bone disease in renal patients. In: Johansen E, Taves DR, Olsen TO, Eds.Continuing Evaluation of the Use of Fluorides. AAAS Selected Symposium. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. pp. 275-293.
Joseph S, Gadhia PK. (2000). Sister chromatid exchange frequency and chromosome aberrations in residents of fluoride endemic regions of South Gujarat. Fluoride. 33: 154-158.
Juncos LI, Donadio JV. (1972). Renal failure and fluorosis. Journal of the American Medical Association 222: 783-5.
Kelly JV. (2000). Letter to Senator Robert Smith, Chairman of Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S. Senate, August 14, 2000.
Kilborn LG, et al. (1950). Fluorosis with report of an advanced case. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 62: 135-141.
Kim FM et al. (2011). An Assessment of Bone Fluoride and Osteosarcoma. J. Dent.Res. July 28, 2011 (published online).
Kiritsy MC, et al. (1996). Assessing fluoride concentrations of juices and juice-flavored drinks. Journal of the American Dental Association. 127: 895-902.
Kishi K, Ishida T. (1993). Clastogenic activity of sodium fluoride in great ape cells. Mutation Research. 301:183-8.
Klein H. (1975). Dental fluorosis associated with hereditary diabetes insipidus. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 40(6):736-41.
Komárek AE (2005). A Bayesian Analysis of Multivariate Doubly-Interval-Censored Dental Data,” Biostatistics. 6 (1):145–55.
Kour K, Singh J. (1980). Histological finding of mice testes following fluoride ingestion. Fluoride. 13: 160-162.
Kumar A, Susheela AK. (1994). Ultrastructural studies of spermiogenesis in rabbit exposed to chronic fluoride toxicity. International Journal of Fertility and Menopausal Studies. 39:164-71.
Kumar JV, Green EL. (1998). Recommendations for fluoride use in children. NY State Dental Journal. 64: 40-7.
Kunzel W, Fischer T. (2000). Caries prevalence after cessation of water fluoridation in La Salud, Cuba. Caries Research.34: 20- 5.
Kunzel W, et al. (2000). Decline in caries prevalence after the cessation of water fluoridation in former East Germany. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. 28: 382-389.
Kunzel W, Fischer T. (1997). Rise and fall of caries prevalence in German towns with different F concentrations in drinking water.Caries Research. 31: 166-73.
Kurttio PN, et al. (1999). Exposure to natural fluoride in well water and hip fracture: A cohort analysis in Finland. American Journal of Epidemiology. 150(8): 817-824.
Lalumandier JA, et al. (1995). The prevalence and risk factors of fluorosis among patients in a pediatric dental practice.Pediatric Dentistry. 17: 19-25.
Levy SM, Guha-Chowdhury N. (1999). Total fluoride intake and implications for dietary fluoride supplementation. Journal of Public Health Dentistry. 59: 211-23.
Levy SM et al. (2009). Associations of fluoride intake with children’s bone measures at age 11. Community Dent OralEpidemiol.37(5):416-26.
Levy SM, et al. (2010). Associations Between Fluorosis of Permanent Incisors and Fluoride Intake From Infant Formula, Other Dietary Sources and Dentifrice During Early Childhood. JADA 141:1190-1201.
Li J, Yao L, Shao QL, Wu CY. 2004. Effects of high fluoride level on neonatal neurobehavioural development. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 23:464-465 (republished in Fluoride 41:165-70).
Li L. (2003). The biochemistry and physiology of metallic fluoride: action, mechanism, and implications. Critical Reviews of Oral Biology and Medicine. 14: 100-14.
Li XS. (1995). Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Fluoride 28: 189-192.
Li Y, et al. (2001). Effect of long-term exposure to fluoride in drinking water on risks of bone fractures. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 16: 932-9.
Lin Fa-Fu; et al (1991). The relationship of a low-iodine and high-fluoride environment to subclinical cretinism in Xinjiang. Endemic Disease Bulletin 6(2):62-67 (republished in Iodine Deficiency Disorder Newsletter Vol. 7(3):24-25).
Liu H, et al. (1988). Analysis of the effect of fluoride on male infertility in regions with reported high level of fluoride (endemic fluorosis). Journal of the Medical Institute of Suzhou 8(4):297-99.
Locker D. (1999). Benefits and Risks of Water Fluoridation. An Update of the 1996 Federal-Provincial Sub-committee Report. Prepared for Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care.
Long YG, et al. (2002). Chronic fluoride toxicity decreases the number of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in rat brain. Neurotoxicology and Teratology. 24: 751-7.
Lu XH, et al. (2000). Study of the mechanism of neurone apoptosis in rats from the chronic fluorosis. Chinese Journal of Epidemiology. 19: 96-98.
Lu Y, et al (2000). Effect of high-fluoride water on intelligence of children. Fluoride 33:74-78.
Luke J. (2001). Fluoride deposition in the aged human pineal gland. Caries Research 35: 125-128.
Luke J. (1997). The Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal Gland. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Surrey, Guildord.
Maas RP et al. (2007). Effects of Fluoridation and Disinfection Agent Combinations on Lead Leaching from Leaded-Brass Parts.Neurotoxicology. 28 (5): 1023–31.
Macek M, et al. (2006). Blood lead concentrations in children and method of water fluoridation in the United States, 1988-1994. Environmental Health Perspectives 114:130-134.
Mahaffey KR, Stone CL. (1976). Effect of High Fluorine (F) Intake on Tissue Lead (Pb) Concentrations. Federation Proceedings. 35: 256.
Mahoney MC, et al. (1991). Bone cancer incidence rates in New York State: time trends and fluoridated drinking water. American Journal of Public Health. 81: 475-9.
Mann J, et al. (1990). Fluorosis and dental caries in 6-8-year-old children in a 5 ppm fluoride area. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. 18: 77-9.
Mann J, et al. (1987). Fluorosis and caries prevalence in a community drinking above-optimal fluoridated water.Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. 15: 293-5.
Marcus W. (1990). Memorandum from Dr. William Marcus, to Alan B. Hais, Acting Director Criteria & Standards Division ODW, US EPA. May 1, 1990.
Marier J and Rose D. (1977). Environmental Fluoride. National Research Council of Canada. Associate Committee on Scientific Criteria for Environmental Quality. NRCC No. 16081, Ottawa, Canada.
Marshall TA, et al. (2004). Associations between Intakes of Fluoride from Beverages during Infancy and Dental Fluorosis of Primary Teeth. Journal of the American College of Nutrition 23:108-16.Martin B. (1991). Scientific Knowledge in Controversy: The Social Dynamics of the Fluoridation Debate. SUNY Press,Albany NY.
Martin B. (1991). Scientific Knowledge in Controversy: The Social Dynamics of the Fluoridation Debate. SUNY Press, Albany NY.
Massler M, Schour I. (1952). Relation of endemic dental fluorosis to malnutrition. Journal of the American Dental Association. 44: 156-165.
Masters R, et al. (2000). Association of silicofluoride treated water with elevated blood lead. Neurotoxicology. 21: 1091-1099.
Masters RD, Coplan M. (1999). Water treatment with silicofluorides and lead toxicity. International Journal of Environmental Studies.56: 435-449.
Matsuo S, et al. (1998). Mechanism of toxic action of fluoride in dental fluorosis: whether trimeric G proteins participate in the disturbance of intracellular transport of secretory ameloblast exposed to fluoride. Archives of Toxicology. 72: 798- 806.
Maupome G, et al. (2001). Patterns of dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. 29: 37-47.
McClure F. (1970). Water fluoridation, the search and the victory. US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington DC.
McDonagh M, et al. (2000). A Systematic Review of Public Water Fluoridation. NHS Center for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, September 2000.
Meng Z, Zhang B. (1997). Chromosomal aberrations and micronuclei in lymphocytes of workers at a phosphate fertilizer factory.Mutation Research. 393: 283-288.
Mihashi, M. and Tsutsui,T.(1996). Clastogenic activity of sodium fluoride to rat vertebral body-derived cells in culture.Mutation Research 368: 7-13.
Moolenburgh H. (1987). Fluoride: The Freedom Fight. Mainstream Publishing, Edinburgh.
Morgan L, et al. (1998). Investigation of the possible associations between fluorosis, fluoride exposure, and childhood behavior problems. Pediatric Dentistry. 20: 244-252. Mullenix P, et al. (1995). Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Neurotoxicology and Teratology. 17: 169-177.
Mullenix P, et al. (1995). Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Neurotoxicology and Teratology. 17: 169-177.
Narayana MV, et al. (1994). Reversible effects of sodium fluoride ingestion on spermatozoa of the rat. International Journal of Fertility and Menopausal Studies. 39: 337-46.
Narayana MV, Chinoy NJ. (1994). Effect of fluoride on rat testicular steroidogenesis. Fluoride. 27: 7-12.
NHMRC (2007). National Health and Medical Research Council, A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Safety of Fluoridation,reference no. EH41, Australian Government, December 27, 2007.
National Research Council (1977). Drinking Water and Health, National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1977, 388–89. National Research Council. (1993). Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride. National Academy Press, Washington DC. National Sanitation Foundation International (NSF). (2000)
National Research Council. (1993). Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride. National Academy Press, Washington DC. National Sanitation Foundation International (NSF). (2000)
National Toxicology Program [NTP] (1990). Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Sodium Fluoride in F344/N Rats and B6C3f1 Mice. Technical report Series No. 393. NIH Publ. No 91-2848. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C. The results of this study are summarized in the Department of Health and Human Services report (DHHS,1991).
NRC (2006). National Research Council of the National Academies, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Neelam, K, et al. (1987). Incidence of prevalence of infertility among married male members of endemic fluorosis district of Andhra Pradesh. In: Abstract Proc Conf Int Soc for Fluoride Res. Nyon, Switzerland.
O’Duffy JD, et al. (1986). Mechanism of acute lower extremity pain syndrome in fluoride-treated osteoporotic patients.American Journal of Medicine. 80: 561-6.
Olsson B. (1979). Dental findings in high-fluoride areas in Ethiopia. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. 7: 51-6.
Orcel P, et al. (1990). Stress fractures of the lower limbs in osteoporotic patients treated with fluoride. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. 5(Suppl 1): S191-4.
Ortiz-Perez D, et al. (2003). Fluoride-induced disruption of reproductive hormones in men. Environmental Research 93:20-30.
Paul V, et al. (1998). Effects of sodium fluoride on locomotor behavior and a few biochemical parameters in rats. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology. 6: 187–191.
Pendrys DG, Katz RV. (1998). Risk factors for enamel fluorosis in optimally fluoridated children born after the US manufacturers’ decision to reduce the fluoride concentration of infant formula. American Journal of Epidemiology 148:967-74.
Poureslami HR, et al. (2011). Intelligence quotient of 7 to 9 year-old children from an area with high fluoride in drinking water. Journal of Dentistry and Oral Hygiene 3(4):61-64.
Public Health Service (PHS). (1993). Toward improving the oral health of Americans: an overview of oral health status, resources, and care delivery. Public Health Reports. 108: 657-72.
Retief DH, et al. (1979). Relationships among fluoride concentration in enamel, degree of fluorosis and caries incidence in a community residing in a high fluoride area. Journal of Oral Pathology. 8: 224-36.
Riggs BL, et al. (1990). Effect of Fluoride treatment on the Fracture Rates in Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis. New England Journal of Medicine 322: 802-809.
Rocha-Amador D et al. (2009). Use of the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test for neurotoxicity evaluation of mixtures in children.Neurotoxicology 30(6):1149-54.
Rozier RG. (1999). The prevalence and severity of enamel fluorosis in North American children. Journal of Public Health Dentistry.59: 239-46.
Sawan RMM et al. (2010) Fluoride Increases Lead Concentrations in Whole Blood and in Calcified Tissues from Lead-Exposed Rats.Toxicology. 271 1–2: 21–26.
Schlesinger ER et al. (1956) Newburgh-Kingston Caries-Fluorine Study. XIII. Pediatric Findings After Ten Years,” Journal of the American Dental Association. 52 (3):296–306.
Schnitzler CM, et al. (1990). Bone fragility of the peripheral skeleton during fluoride therapy for osteoporosis. Clinical Orthopaedics.(261): 268-75.
Seholle RH. (1984). Preserving the perfect tooth (editorial). Journal of the American Dental Association. 108: 448.
Seow WK, Thomsett MJ. (1994). Dental fluorosis as a complication of hereditary diabetes insipidus: studies of six affected patients. Pediatr Dent. 16(2):128-32.
Seppa L, et al. (2000). Caries trends 1992-98 in two low-fluoride Finnish towns formerly with and without fluoride. Caries Research.34: 462-8.
Seraj B, et al. (2006). [Effect of high fluoride concentration in drinking water on children’s intelligence]. [Study in Persian] Journal of Dental Medicine 19(2):80-86.
Shao Q, et al. (2000). Influence of free radical inducer on the level of oxidative stress in brain of rats with fluorosis.Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 34(6):330-2.
Sharma R et al. (2008). Fluoride Induces Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress and Inhibits Protein Synthesis and Secretion. Environ Health Perspect. 116:1142–1146.
Shashi A. (2003). Histopathological investigation of fluoride-induced neurotoxicity in rabbits. Fluoride. 36: 95-105.
Shea JJ, et al. (1967). Allergy to fluoride. Annals of Allergy. 25:388-91.
Sheth FJ, et al. (1994). Sister chromatid exchanges: A study in fluorotic individuals of North Gujurat. Fluoride. 27: 215-219.
Shiboski CH, et al. (2003). The association of early childhood caries and race/ethnicity among California preschool children. Journal of Public Health Dentistry. 63:38-46.
Shivarajashankara YM , et al. (2002). Brain lipid peroxidation and antioxidant systems of young rats in chronic fluoride intoxication.Fluoride. 35: 197-203.
Shivarajashankara YM , et al. (2002). Histological changes in the brain of young fluoride-intoxicated rats. Fluoride. 35:12-21.
Singh A, Jolly SS. (1970). Fluorides and Human Health. World Health Organization. pp 239-240.
Singh A, et al. (1963). Endemic fluorosis: epidemiological, clinical and biochemical study of chronic fluoride intoxication in Punjab.Medicine. 42: 229-246.
Spencer AJ et al. (1996).Water Fluoridation in Australia. Community Dental Health. 13 (suppl. 2):27–37.
Spittle B. Fluoride Fatigue: Is Fluoride in Your Drinking Water—and from Other Sources— Making You Sick? (Dunedin, New Zealand: Paua Press, 2008).
Spittle B, et al. (1998). Intelligence and fluoride exposure in New Zealand Children (abstract). Fluoride 31:S13
Sprando RL, et al. (1998). Testing the potential of sodium fluoride to affect spermatogenesis: a morphometric study. Food and Chemical Toxicology. 36: 1117-24.
Sprando RL, et al. (1997). Testing the potential of sodium fluoride to affect spermatogenesis in the rat. Food and Chemical Toxicology. 35: 881-90.
Sprando RL, et al. (1996). Effect of intratesticular injection of sodium fluoride on spermatogenesis. Food and ChemicalToxicology. 34: 377-84.
Stannard JG, et al. (1991). Fluoride Levels and Fluoride Contamination of Fruit Juices. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 16: 38-40.
Stecher P, et al. (1960). The Merck Index of Chemicals and Drugs. Merck & Co., Inc, Rathway NJ. p. 952
Strunecka A, Patocka J. (1999). Pharmacological and toxicological effects of aluminofluoride complexes. Fluoride 32:230-242.
Sun ZR, et al. (2000). Effects of high fluoride drinking water on the cerebral functions of mice. Chinese Journal of Epidemiology. 19: 262-263.
Susheela AK. (1993). Prevalence of endemic fluorosis with gastrointestinal manifestations in people living in some North-Indian villages. Fluoride. 26: 97-104.
Susheela AK and Jethanandani P (1996). Circulating testosterone levels in Skeletal Fluorosis patients. Clinical Toxicology.34 (2): 1-7.
Susheela AK, Kumar A. (1991). A study of the effect of high concentrations of fluoride on the reproductive organs of malerabbits, using light and scanning electron microscopy. Journal of Reproductive Fertility. 92: 353-60.
Sutton P. (1996). The Greatest Fraud: Fluoridation. Lorne, Australia: Kurunda Pty, Ltd.
Sutton P. (1960). Fluoridation: Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials. Melbourne University Press. Second Edition.
Sutton, P. (1959). Fluoridation: Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials. Melbourne University Press. First Edition.
Teotia M, et al. (1998). Endemic chronic fluoride toxicity and dietary calcium deficiency interaction syndromes of metabolic bone disease and deformities in India: year 2000. Indian Journal of Pediatrics. 65: 371-81.
Teotia SPS, et al. (1976). Symposium on the non-skeletal phase of chronic fluorosis: The Joints. Fluoride. 9: 19-24.
Tsutsui T, Suzuki N, Ohmori M, Maizumi H. (1984). Cytotoxicity, chromosome aberrations and unscheduled DNA synthesis in cultured human diploid fibroblasts induced by sodium fluoride. Mutation Research. 139:193-8.
Tye CE et al. (2011). Fluoride Does not Inhibit Enamel Protease Activity. J Dent Res. 90(4): 489-494.
U.S. EPA (2011). EPA and HHS Announce New Scientific Assessments and Actions on Fluoride / Agencies working together to maintain benefits of preventing tooth decay while preventing excessive exposure. Joint press release with DHHS, Jan 7, 2011.
Varner JA et al. (1998). Chronic Administration of Aluminum-Fluoride or Sodium-Fluoride to Rats in Drinking Water:Alterations in Neuronal and Cerebrovascular Integrity. Brain Research. 78 (1–2): 284–98.
Waldbott GL, et al. (1978). Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma. Coronado Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas.
Waldbott GL. (1965). A Struggle with Titans. Carlton Press, NY.
Wang C, et al. (2000). Treatment Chemicals contribute to Arsenic Levels. Opflow. (Journal of the American Water Works Association. October 2000.
Wang Y, et al. (1997). Changes of coenzyme Q content in brain tissues of rats with fluorosis. Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 31: 330-3.
Wang X, et al. (2001). Effects of high iodine and high fluorine on children’s intelligence and thyroid function. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 20(4):288-90.
Warren JJ et al. (2009). Considerations on Optimal Fluoride Intake Using Dental Fluorosis and Dental Caries Outcomes – A Longitudinal Study. Journal of Public Health Dentistry. 69 (2): 111–15.
WHO (Online). WHO Oral Health Country/Area Profile Programme. Department of Noncommunicable Diseases Surveillance/Oral Health. WHO Collaborating Centre, Malmö University, Sweden.
Williams JE, et al. (1990). Community water fluoride levels, preschool dietary patterns, and the occurrence of fluoride enamel opacities. Journal of Public Health Dentistry. 50: 276-81.
Wu DQ, Wu Y. (1995). Micronucleus and sister chromatid exchange frequency in endemic fluorosis. Fluoride. 28: 125-127.
Xiang Q, et al. (2003a). Effect of fluoride in drinking water on children’s intelligence. Fluoride. 36: 84-94.
Xiang Q. (2003b). Blood lead of children in Wamiao-Xinhuai intelligence study. Fluoride. 36: 138.
Xu Y, et al. (1994). The effect of fluorine on the level of intelligence in children. Endemic Diseases Bulletin 9(2):83-84.
Yang Y, et al. (1994). The effects of high levels of fluoride and iodine on intellectual ability and the metabolism of fluoride and iodine. Chinese Journal of Epidemiology 15(4):296-98 (republished in Fluoride 2008; 41:336-339).
Yao Y, et al. (1997). Comparative assessment of the physical and mental development of children in endemic fluorosis area with water improvement and without water improvement. Literature and Information on Preventive Medicine 3(1):42-43.
Yao Y, et al. (1996). Analysis on TSH and intelligence level of children with dental Fluorosis in a high fluoride area. Literature and Information on Preventive Medicine 2(1):26-27.
Yu Y et al. (1996) Neurotransmitter and receptor changes in the brains of fetuses from areas of endemic fluorosis. ChineseJ Endemiology 15: 257-259 (republished in Fluoride 41(2):134-8).
Zakrzewska H, et al. (2002). In vitro influence of sodium fluoride on ram semen quality and enzyme activities. Fluoride.35: 153-160.
Zhang, R., et al. (2009). A stable and sensitive testing system for potential carcinogens based on DNA damage-induced gene expression in human HepG2 cell. Toxicology in Vitro. 23:158-165.
Zhang Z, et al. (2001). [Effects of selenium on the damage of learning-memory ability of mice induced by fluoride]. Wei Sheng Yan Jiu.30: 144-6.
Zhang Z, et al. (1999). [Effect of fluoride exposure on synaptic structure of brain areas related to learning-memory in mice] [Article in Chinese]. Wei Sheng Yan Jiu. 28:210-2.
Zhao ZL, et al. (1995). The influence of fluoride on the content of testosterone and cholesterol in rat. Fluoride. 28: 128-130.
Ziegelbecker R. (1970). A critical review on the fluorine caries problem. Fluoride. 3: 71-79.
Ziegelbecker R. (1981). Fluoridated Water and Teeth. Fluoride. 14 (3): 123–28.
Zhai JX, et al. (2003). Studies on fluoride concentration and cholinesterase activity in rat hippocampus. Zhonghua Lao Dong Wei Sheng Zhi Ye Bing Za Zhi. 21: 102-4.
Zhao XL, Wu JH. (1998). Actions of sodium fluoride on acetylcholinesterase activities in rats. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences. 11: 1-6
Zhao LB, et al (1996). Effect of high-fluoride water supply on children’s intelligence. Fluoride. 29: 190-192.
Yes, run this past WP:WikiProject Medicine. It's the 50 Reasons article itself that's in dispute, not the individual references used. Some may pass WP:MEDRS and be usable, and some may not. Primary studies won't do, but maybe there are some reviews in those refs. I don't know because I don't have time to deal with this right now. Good luck there. You can report back when you have sought their input. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
As I am trying only to add a {{Cite web}}50 Reasons to Further reading on Water fluoridation controversy, I am at a loss now what it is I am asking WP:WikiProject Medicine to validate. Remember, I am asking you because when I sought to have the article whitelisted (which really should't be necessary), I was told effectively that you had a compelling reason not to do so. -SM05:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree, but having read WP:EL again, I find 50 Reasons to fit this in spades. In the anti-fluoridation movement, it is mainstream thinking (i.e. 50 Reasons cannot be said to misrepresent anti-fluoridation thinking). How is it not suitable for Further reading on Water fluoridation controversy? Seriously, what am I missing here?? -SM09:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I think I may have brought this up before, but you tagged CaptainHill a couple months ago, but he has managed to slip trough the cracks as of yet. Im about to sign off, but I noticed that he untagged himself some time ago and used the account to vote in the poll. If you can still remember why it is you tagged him, it would probably be worth it to go through SPI or do whatever else it may take to get him blocked. Cheers! Evanh2008(talk|contribs)05:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Pseudoscience 'warning' headers
Hey, haven't crossed paths in ages. Was wondering what your thoughts were on this:
Glad those are gone. We should skype some time if you've got a few minutes. I'd be curious to hear what you've been up to. Ocaasit | c03:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Attention to fix Ozone therapy rticle, or to fixing the associated category creation?
Does this edit] address your concern for attention required, or were you also concerned about watching the particular editor and his Wiki-abusing creation of categories? ParkSehJik (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
All of the above. I suspect we're dealing with someone who doesn't understand our rules, so we should go gently, but still make sure that articles and categories maintain their integrity, and MEDRS rules are used for medical/scientific information, and ordinary RS rules for other information. I just don't have much time to deal with Wikipedia at the moment. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Maybe more than one editor, too. Another question I have on a related matter - enforcement of some MEDRS rules might be appropriate at the psychiatry - and bipolar - articles, too. My MEDRS based edits in the lede per MOS (lede) - "summarize the most important points — including any prominent controversies", keep being deleted with edit summaries like "far too strong" as simply too strong, and sources disputing whether psychiatry is a science are in the minority"and "These edits blatantly push an anti-psychiatry POV". I can't help that the sources say things that are "far too strong". People who don;t believe in God are in the minority, but that does not mean God exists, and there is no such thing as "pushing an anti POV" against a real science. Science by definition requires disbelief until proven. If psychiatry wants to wear the cloathing of being a science, it has to put itself up for refutation like any other science, and welcome challenges. Put it up and try to shoot it down. What remains up is tentatively accetped as the truth. Where can I go around here for support when I edit on hot-button issues that medical doctors react against as strongly as alt med practitioners reacting to results showing no effect? ParkSehJik (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
FYI: A few IPs have been trying to blank this list and seem to be removing the sock templates from numerous IP accounts. I did a RFPP on Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 99.251.114.120. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi. The other day you made and edit to the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle essay. I then attempted an adaptive edit to reduce some redundant wording ("one") as well as a few other changes, including altering a word that changed the meaning of your original intent without realizing it. This was reverted because of the missunderstanding of that word "iteractive". I also noticed something afterwards and wanted to get your opinion on it. You state in your contribution that: "If one has been warned of a possible 3RR violation, then one must not edit that content in any manner for at least 24 hours."' This is not accurate. First, just recieving a warning does not mean a violation has occured. Second Even if an editor has violated the 3RR policy they may still add adaptive edits that add to the content without changing a single word. I am concerned that editors will see this as an opportunity to "warn" editor simply to keep them from editing the article in question during disputes. As this is simply not within policy or guidleines and could create a load of drama I will be editing that in the near future to reflect the encyclopedia's actual policy. If you object in anyway, please consider beginning a discussion on the BRD talkpage or feel free to address your concerns on my own talkpage. As I am in no real hurry, I don't expect to make the change within the next 24 hrs.Thanks and happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I can see your point about misuse of warnings. My intention was to remind people (and in this case inform newbies) that any edit on the page can be counted (by some admins) as part of the three edits, and thus it is risky if one really is approaching 3RR. I've seen editors blocked for edits that had nothing to do with the disputed content. It's not fair, but it happens. That was my intent, which is why I chose the wording "possible" (meaning immediately pending violation). I may not have done that very well, so if you can improve it, please do so. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi BullRangifer. I've spent a considerable amount of time working with RTI International to help them propose a more neutral and better-sourced article, donate some images, etc. in a public relations role. The proposed article is on the Talk page, but I don't think the article is on a lot of watchlists. I thought since you have edited it recently, you might have an interest in reviewing our work, offering feedback, and/or merging to article-space, etc. We would like to work on bringing it up to GA, so any thoughts/edits you have would be appreciated if you care to.
Much appreciated. Especially for your kind comments. I do this kind of COI work frequently. If you have a specific area of interest, maybe I can ping you next time I've got something up your alley? CorporateM (Talk) 05:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
In this edit, you stated that the Markle-letter claims are "still repeated by thousands of websites". Do you have a reliable source? The data are consistent with search engine counts, but that's original research. I have a non-recent reliable reliable source for "hundreds". Unless you have a handy source, I'm probably going to kill that statement in the lead.Novangelis (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm RDN1F. It's come to my attention that you've signed up for WikiProject Rehab, but since that time the project has retired. I've decided to take it upon myself to rejuvenate the project - but I could do with your help. If you are still willing to help mentor (or even give me a hand in bringing this project back!) leave a message on my talk page RDN1FTALK16:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Requested move: Alternative medicine → Complementary and alternative medicine
Yes, it's the wiki moment you've been waiting for ...
Hi Brangifer. I thought you might have some insight or knowledge of sources on the following: is it the case that chiropractic (such a resistant word to normal English language use; it should be an adjective, no? the noun should be chiropraxis or chiropractice) is no longer considered to be a CAM/alt med in Denmark? Given the official Danish definition of CAM I presume this refers to its regulatory status? Oh, and what's the deal with, and how to categorise, osteopathy (inside and outside of the US)? FiachraByrne (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Osteopathy in the USA is pretty much on a par with MD. They have the same legal status now. They officially renounced their original quackish beliefs many years ago, which opened the way for acceptance. Chiropractic has never done that. In other countries, osteopaths aren't physicians and they still practice in the old ways, much like chiropractic. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, you may also like this paper Gaudiano, B. A.; Brown, L. A.; Miller, I. W. (2012). "Tapping their Patients' Problems Away?: Characteristics of Psychotherapists Using Energy Meridian Techniques". Research on Social Work Practice. 22 (6): 647. doi:10.1177/1049731512448468.
Sorry for hijacking the discussion, but the quick-answer to Denmark's situation that "it's not even real chiropractic" is questionable IMO....a more 'accurate' answer might be that chiropractic is an evolving profession? Denmark is an example of the 'tip' of the progressive chiropractic movement, with general acceptance of chiropractic as a medical specialty for the conservative treatment of musculoskeletal conditions.
A similar situation is seen is Switzerland [4], where chiropractic has become much more mainstream:
"With the start of a new chiropractic program in the faculty of medicine, University of Zürich, an in-depth look at chiropractic practice in Switzerland was needed..." and "Chiropractic practice in Switzerland is a government-recognized medical profession with significant interprofessional referrals..."[5]
Canada is another country where the chiropractic profession has made significant movement towards the mainstream; for example, this source did not include chiropractic in their assessment of 'Alternative health consultations in Canada' because it is not included as a form of Alt Med in the Canadian Community Health Survey:
" It is interesting to note that chiropractics are not included as a form of alternative health care in the CCHS, likely the result of this type of care now being recognized as mainstream rather than 'alternative' or 'complementary'."[6]
The US has the majority of the worlds chiropractors, Kaptchuk & Eisenberg have described the evolution of the chiropractic profession in the US:
"Even to call chiropractic "alternative" is problematic; in many ways, it is distinctly mainstream. Facts such as the following attest to its status and success: Chiropractic is licensed in all 50 states. An estimated 1 of 3 persons with lower back pain is treated by chiropractors.1 In 1988 (the latest year with reliable statistics), between $2.42 and $4 billion3 was spent on chiropractic care, and in 1990, 160 million office visits were made to chiropractors. Since 1972, Medicare has reimbursed patients for chiropractic treatments, and these treatments are covered as well by most major insurance companies. In 1994, the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research removed much of the onus of marginality from chiropractic by declaring that spinal manipulation can alleviate low back pain."[7]
BRangifer, I think that you consider 'real' chiropractic to involve a belief in innate intelligence and vitalism, however, I would describe that as 'traditional' chiropractic, as:
"Today, a substantial number of chiropractors are anxious to sever all remaining ties to the vitalism of innate intelligence. For these practitioners, the notion of the innate serves only to maintain chiropractic as a fringe profession and to delay its "transition into legitimate professional education, with serious scholarship, research, and service."[8]Puhlaa (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
My pleasure FiachraByrne! While I am glad that the chiropractic profession is moving towards the mainstream and even already gaining mainstream acceptance in some countries, it is noteworthy that a significant proportion of practicing chiropractors do still maintain a 'traditional' paradigm. My own research and that of some of my colleagues has suggested that ~20% are practicing with a 'traditional' approach. Some very well-respected authors (eg: Scott Haldeman have thus described the chiropractic profession as currently "standing at the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine". Puhlaa (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Puhlaa, you are ALWAYS welcome here! You are not hijacking the discussion, but adding to it. That's fine with me. You are correct that my definition of "real chiropractic" is connected to the original premises upon which the profession is based, and which many chiropractors still hold to be true. The chiropractic use of spinal "adjustments" WITHOUT the intention to "correct vertebral subluxations" (the wording and legal requirement under Medicare law in the USA) is not real chiropractic, but a PT, DO, or MD practice, just as acupuncture WITHOUT the intent to affect "meridians" is not real acupuncture, but needling. The corollary is pretty exact, as both are vitalistic forms of energy medicine.
OTOH, you are absolutely correct that there are increasing numbers of chiropractors, mostly the younger ones, who are eager to distance themselves from "subluxations" and vitalism. The majority of older ones, who are still in practice and dominate the leadership and education of the profession still hold to that doctrine. Unfortunately several straight schools still exist, including the largest one, Life University, and therefore huge numbers of chiropractors still graduate with a belief that vertebral subluxations are the cause of all disease. Yes, Canada and Denmark are certainly exceptional in that regard. There are probably a much higher percentage of Canadian and Danish chiropractors who never use the word "subluxation." I once did a comparison study, and should have been more systematic and published the results, but it was an informal study. This was about 2003-4. I visited over twenty websites which I knew were straight websites, and where the correction of subluxations was preached with evangelic fervor. I had visited these websites often for several years. Well, I came away from the experience rather startled and wondering if I had lost my sanity! Nearly all of them had completely dropped the use of the word. To verify if I had remembered correctly or was in error, I checked older versions of the same pages at the Internet Archives. Lo and behold, I was correct. They had eliminated the offending word, but not only had they not changed their practice or belief, they had substituted more kosher words that still meant the same thing. This not only did not represent a reform in beliefs, it represented deliberate deception in an attempt to fly under the radar. Very disappointing!
Be that as it may, as this process proceeds, we will no doubt see chiropractic being dropped from official lists of alternative medicine practices, RS will then reflect this, and we will then be able to report it here. We follow the sources, whether we agree or not.
The Canadian Community Health Survey chose to only include three of the many forms of alternative medicine that exist within Canada. We can't conclude anything more than that. That would be OR. The very first reference in that article mentions chiropractic as a form of alternative medicine.
The idea of being a "real chiropractor" is used very pointedly by Douglas Andersen, a DC in Brea, CA (in Los Angeles). He counts himself as an exception:
"I understand there are many who feel that a "real" chiropractor would not practice this way. Fine. If being a real DC means wellness care, asymptomatic care, excessive x-rays, poor working relationships with MDs, rejection of scientific data, bizarre techniques, outrageous claims, and the same treatment each visit regardless of the problem, then I don't want to be a "real" DC. "The only thing "real" DCs and I agree upon is that we would both like the public to look at our title and have an idea of what we do. Maybe all DCs would benefit if those of us who reject pseudoscientific subluxation-based philosophical chirobabble (designed to addict the world to manipulation) had a different title. I would proudly introduce myself as a medipractor, a treatipractor, a physical medicine therapist, a doctor of chiropractic medicine, or whatever it would take to inform the public there is a basic difference."[9]
Other chiropractors have also objected. This one wrote the following at Chirotalk. I used to frequent it, but haven't even visited the website for several years:
The elusive chiropractic "subluxation"
By: A chiropractor
I have great memories of the first time I experienced "subluxation diagnosis" at Life University.
I was a wide-eyed, idealistic chiro convert in first quarter. I went to some club (maybe Mo-Pal?) and some upper quarter student "analyzed" me.
I had just gotten adjusted that afternoon by my field doc and I thought he was going to be impressed by how I was subluxation-free. (At that time, I thought that subluxations were real, verifiable, etc.)
He was pleased to tell me that he had found many, many subluxations in my spine. I was horrified. What had my field doc been doing for two years? Don't worry, the upper quarter student said, everyone has subluxations all the time, it's normal.
Huh? I was so confused. How could everyone have subluxations all the time? Were they silently dying from these Killer Subluxations?
Next, I went to Full Spine club. I was finally going to find out a little about the complex, scientific analysis that chiros used to find subluxations. But when I got there, it was basically just a bunch of people who would find a few muscle spasms and then CRACK ! I asked them, in panic, how they were sure that areas of muscle tightness were really subluxations. Their answer: Oh sure, they're probably subluxations. Muscle spams are a component of Vertebral Subluxation Complex.
At that time, I still thought subluxations were REAL FINDINGS and didn't realize they were a dime a dozen and every chiropractor could find different listings on the same exact patient.
The funniest thing I ever remember was in some class (maybe Thompson or Activator) where the teacher was telling us to adjust based on a leg check. I remember some student asking, "But what if the X-RAY LISTINGS are different than the leg check?"
I just had to laugh. At that time, I still believed in chiropractic but knew that most chiros didn't use the x-rays for anything except a patient scare tactic. Not only that, but x-ray listings were bogus due to x-ray distortion, spinal assymetry, among a million other things. Worse, chiropractic adjustments do not change x-rays listings.
So, I, even still a chiro believer, just had to laugh. How could my classmate in 9th or 10th quarter still actually believe that Gonstead style x-rays listings were valid or important? How could he actually believe, after all the contradictions we'd seen, that subluxations were real and not just one particular doctor's imagination (vs. another doctor's imagination)? It was like a 20 year old who still believed in the Easter Bunny.
It always amazes me that students can't see the obvious when they look at all the contradictory techniques and analysis system. The reason that practically anybody can invent their own technique system is because you are dealing with a mythological entity. That's why any New Age guru can invent their own "healing energy" system.
You say atlas is out, he says sacrum is the primary. Who cares? Let's all be friends. No one really BELIEVES in this junk anyway, right? Let's just jump through the hoops so we can get out there and pay back these loans!
END of story.
Well, things are changing in the profession, and we all hope that the dinosaurs who still control the reigns will soon loosen their grasp. The transition is happening, but does it reflect itself in a change of practice, or just a change of terminology? I still see DCs doing just as many adjustments, for every type of problem, regardless of real etiology. That's not progress or reform. They are caught between a rock and a hard place, and I know many who have dropped out and are in other health care professions, especially since chiropractic usage has fallen over the years. It is estimated that over 50% of chiropractors have given up within five years of graduation, and they also have the highest default rate on student loans. The temptation to join practice building rackets to get those loans paid off is very strong, thus leading to scams and quackery. To give up subluxation terminology, at least in the USA, causes another problem, since they cannot bill Medicare for any treatment that is not for the purpose of "correcting subluxations." If they drop spinal manipulation for every problem (the only responsible thing to do), then they are in danger of infringing on the territory of the already established profession of Physical Therapy, which has many times more practitioners, and PT has always been an entrenched part of mainstream medicine. They have never been "alternative." BTW, I just found a cool chart comparing PTs and DCs. I don't know if it's totally accurate, but interesting nonetheless. The Bureau of Labor Statistics also lists some good figures: Physical Therapists and Chiropractors. I have a question. Canada, being the more enlightened and modern land (seriously!), compared to the primitive USA, as regards funding of education, does it pay for chiropractic education, or do DCs in Canada end up with a huge student loan debt? In Denmark it's paid, like all other educations, through taxes. I have never become a citizen, yet all four years of my PT education (which were post college prerequisites) was paid for. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for being welcoming and for the comments, Brangifer. With regard to your specific question about education funding, it is different between Quebec and the rest of Canada. In Quebec, the DC program is part of a public-funded university and the costs are thus partially subsidized by the government like any other public university program in Canada. The only English-speaking DC school in Canada (CMCC) does not receive any government funding for tuition (although the feds did just fund a $150,000 simulation lab for emergency care at CMCC). The tuition at CMCC is partially subsidized with private donations, etc, but I don't know to what extent. My tuition was $22,000/year ($88,000 over 4 years). This is indeed a heavy debt-load, especially considering that most students are coming with student debt from their undergraduate degree as well. That said, the classmates that I got to know well during the program are now all doing very well and will have no issues with this debt (however, I believe that there may be some selection bias associated with my personal anecdote). For comparison, the government does partially subsidize medical education in Canadian public universities; my little brother payed $13,000/year ($52,000 over 4 years) for medical school. His earning potential will eventually be higher than mine, but not until after he has existed as a slave (resident) for another couple of years :) Hope that answers your question? Puhlaa (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm always interested in the subject of social justice, especially human rights. In Denmark, as in the rest of the social democracies of Scandinavia, they have all the human rights one has in the USA and Canada, but they also add education and health care as human rights, and thus funded through taxation. That means no tuition or medical bills. There are some exceptions, but one never need worry about the costs of education or health care. In the USA, my homeland, human rights are limited, and anything like what I've described is viewed as evil socialism. Well, if it's better for the populace, done freely, and they retain more human rights than in the USA, good for them. Consequently they have a better educated populace, with better employment, job security, social benefits, fewer working hours, more vacation time, more accessible and cheaper health care, etc.. There are a whole host of reasons why they are rated the happiest people on earth. I have never lived in Canada, but I suspect it's somewhere between the Scandinavian model and the American model. You may know better. You are lucky to live there. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Disruptive comments from an editor who has banned me and many others from his talk page. Personal attacks are not welcome.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is one POV, granted, although it's stuck in 1980. Our page host is a notable chiropractic skeptic and physical therapist who then proceeds to give a unsourced, anecdotal account of chiropractic based on 'insider knowledge'. Chirobase has nothing on it that isn't already published in the peer-reviewed literature, Ernst in particular. Is there a citation to support your claim that only PTs, DOs, MDs do manipulation whereas chiropractors perform adjustments? The intent business is antiquated; it does not reflect the contemporary sources. Lastly, the subluxation bit is way overblown, it's used interchangeably with joint dysfunction. DVMt (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the very detailed replies. I guess it's to be expected that they would, if possible, move more towards a standard biomedical model if professionalizing (and it's probably more possible for this type of therapy - not an avenue for all of these alt meds, certainly). You see similar things reported for TCM within China (the systems are too incompatible for syncreticism so TCM - meaning of "pulse" etc - becomes narrowed and translated into biomedical terms; which is not to say that it becomes scientific necessarily or effective but it is changed). For chiropractic, if this route is followed, there must still remain a problem of differentiation from other similar professions (physical therapy); how are they to be distinguished (special knowledge, training, etc). The whole issue also underlines the problem of definitions, even stipulative ones.
Scandinavian welfare system looks to be quite fantastic although they normally say that this model is dependent on a high degree of social homogeneity (perhaps, but ...); the NHS was also a remarkable achievement. The medical profession, normally socially conservative, can be quite an impediment towards the introduction of such schemes.
Oh, you said on the talk page that sociologists, anthropologists had taken the wrong side when analysing medical systems (alt and conventional, etc). The problem is not that some (perhaps the majority in the anglophone literature) have taken the wrong side but that they have taken a side at all (which leads them into stupidities or into making statements about efficacy of therapies, etc, which - at least within biomedical terms - lie outside their competence. Their job should be just to describe and analyze; not to politick or moralize. Thanks again. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
The chiropractic profession has decided that they will market themselves as "the spinal health care experts in the health care system."[10] Well, that is either a limited field already covered by PT (or very easily covered by them), or a huge one, IF one accepts the original chiropractic thesis that all diseases originate in the spine. Well, that claim is patently false, so that doesn't leave enough for a whole profession. A profession needs a wider field of labor. I have previously argued for creating a fast track incorporation into Physical Therapy (probably two years) for chiros who are more science based in their thinking. They would have to learn some things and unlearn other things. What I've discovered instead is that they usually drop out and do other things. Many do it within the first five years. Some become MDs, PAs, PTs, or nurses. If such a fast track program existed, I suspect more would take that route, and that would be great because they already have some good skills and knowledge. There just isn't room for, or a need for, another profession with that emphasis.
About sociologists, you have nailed it on the head. That is exactly what I believe too. Otherwise they do a valuable service. For purists in the medical field (a dying breed), mixing unproven with proven methods is unacceptable, even for social reasons. They still see the trend toward EBM as the way to go. It provides a method for testing what has been used for years and eliminating what proves to have been used on a false basis, and also for screening any method, new or old, which clamors for acceptance within modern medicine. A winnowing process is essential. The growing postmodernist tendency to seek to do "whatever makes people happy" and whatever will make more money seems to be gaining ground, ethics be damned. It's a return to the dark ages. One thing that could stem this tide is insurance companies refusing to spend money on unproven methods, but they are greedy businesses, and if enough customers demand a service and are willing to pay for it, the insurance company caves in and includes that method in some policies, even if it's a ridiculous method. Greed is what's screwing up health care. If we could get the profit motive out of it, it would do much better. I'm all for including effective methods, regardless of their origins, but they should be proven first. Some sociologists weigh in and argue for acceptance of unproven methods because they are popular, because so many people use them anyway, etc.. That doesn't sit right with me. As for Wikipedia, we document what's happening, what people have written, their opinions, their actions, etc.. We just need to keep telling the whole story. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Doug. I don't see that IP making any edits elsewhere than the two articles I warned them about. Nothing at Climate change. What am I missing here? I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to give them simple warnings since it's a behavioral issue, rather than a content issue. We can't tolerate vandalism or solo editing without any collaboration. They'll have to discuss things nicely and work them out. Just expressing dissatisfaction isn't enough.-- Brangifer (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
It is such a lamentable regret that you failed to report me in spite of my unanswerable objections to your source, as I have little doubt that it would have pleased you immensely to have unnecessarily silenced me when no response from you was possible; I would by no means have had any pleasure of yours forfeited by your negligence or an undeserved regard of cordiality towards me.
As to this so-called statement of Cornell University that you have so kindly proffered, I regrettably maintain some reservations that lead me to suspect that a statement from a daily college newspaper that is entirely student-run and one that avowedly is and always has been completely independent from Cornell University cannot be with sufficient propriety considered a reliable statement from said university. You can, at your leisure, compare your source's reliability to one that I humbly present.
Excellent reply! I love it. You have a way with words, and your source is good enough for the article. Yes, as you may have noted, I did not use the source I mentioned because it would not qualify as a RS. Your source, OTOH, is good. Nice find. Keep up the good work. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Etiquette
Hello, I think you would have asked me first if I do not oppose that you have "Strike throughs added by me for clarity.", I also think it made a bad beginning and affected some of the editors towards negative approach. Thank you. Ryanspir (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Ryan. I can see your consternation and do apologize that my refactoring seems to have offended you. I'm sorry about that. I guess I should have asked. As far as the responses, I really doubt it's had any real effect. All responses have been negative, and most of them were made before my refactoring. I felt that clarity was important and just did it the way I would have done it if I had started such an RfC. I'll try to be more careful in the future. My apologies again. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Please don't template experienced users. We've been here about the same length of time, I have quite a few more edits than you, and have survived (and been vindicated) at an Arbcom proceeding, so we've both been around. We may have different styles of editing and commenting, including how we leave subject matter and sources on talk pages to be used for content if someone wishes to use it, and a bit of respect and "minding your own business" might be appropriate. I don't follow you around and hide your comments. If you were familiar with the way that particular talk page has been used, you'd know I was documenting that the term pseudoscience is legitimate, and that RS note that pseudoscience exists, all for the benefit of an editor (User:Widescreen) who's been giving trouble on that talk page. Now she's been indef banned, but she no doubt still reads it. The sources can also be used for content, and the talk page is also used for that purpose, IOW as a respository for suggested sources and content. When I get more time I may do it myself. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Precisely. Whether Scjessey is right or not, his method leaves a lot to be desired. It doesn't assume good faith, and it's certainly not very collegial. It's just plain insulting and doesn't create good relationships.
Please stop using talk pages such as Talk:Pseudoscience for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. If you are an "experienced user", you should know talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article. If you need a dumping ground for sources, look no further than your own user space.Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Lovely response. Nice to meet such a welcoming editor. It makes editing here so much nicer.... I'm not sure whether your actions are outright uncivil, but they certainly aren't collegial. There is quite a bit of latitude in the interpretation of talk page abuse, and I'm not even close. When there is a difference of opinion on such a borderline issue, it's usually wisest to be collegial, rather than outright rude and confrontational. Your actions are very offensive and definitely violate AGF. Now if you were protecting Wikipedia from trolling, that would be another matter, but that's not even close. You may not care about whether you offend loyal and experienced editors, but I try not to do so if it can be helped. In that we're apparently quite different. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not a "borderline issue" at all. Dumping loosely-related text/sources on to a talk page without any sort of indication of intention makes it look like you are using the talk page as a forum to make some sort of point. That's just not appropriate. I'm sorry if you weren't happy about my terse response to your actions, but you reverted me after I appropriately hatted (not deleted, I might add) the sections you created. Please use article talk pages properly in the future, and restrict your freeform source dumping to your own user space (which is precisely what it's for). -- Scjessey (talk) 13:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
"Makes it look like" is the key here. That's exclusively from "your" viewpoint because you were not AGF and didn't know the context. You came to a page and stuck your nose into a situation without any knowledge of the context or history of what had been happening there, or who was watching. There had been controversy and an editor had been community banned, but was still watching. My actions were in a context. They weren't some willy nilly dumping. Sometimes the point happens to be to educate other editors, and providing sources helps them learn, and those sources may or may not be useful in the article, but there was at least the possibility. That's a matter for the involved (which wasn't you) editors to decide in a collaborative manner. If any of them thought I was misusing the talk page, they were welcome to say so. It's never happened to me before. The better procedure for you would have been to politely talk with me about it right here (or by email), rather than jump in and unilaterally treat a much older and more experienced editor with disrespect. We usually give each other a bit of latitude in these matters. It's only when dealing with disruptive editors, especially those pushing some fringe agenda using unreliable sources, that we hat or delete comments. Just show a little consideration next time.
It's good you aren't one of my pupils who treated me that way. Suddenly we would have had to tighten up the talk page rules into such an ironclad thing that they would become extremely rigid, boring, and rather uninformative. Yes, be don't want them to become a free for all chat forum, but neither do we want editing to no longer be an interesting and fun experience. We are a community of editors, we get to know each other, and we do share a bit. Occasionally it might get a slight bit beyond strictly the absolute essentials of editing, but we allow some of that if it doesn't get out of hand. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you should've done your due diligence and checked back in the article and talk page history. I have been an active editor on the article (and in related articles) for a long time. Hatting is routinely performed with "go nowhere" threads, such as the two you created, on thousands of article talk pages. So when you use "we", you are unreasonably talking on behalf of other editors who may not agree with you. Anyway, I see no further point in continuing this conversation, as long as you understand that I would do exactly the same thing in exactly the same situation. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I see that you have occasionally commented there, but not enough that I ever noticed you. As far as "go nowhere" threads, you very quickly ensured that my comments couldn't go anywhere, only because you didn't see any value in them. What if someone else had? You censored me. My comments weren't trolling, spamming, or pushing of a fringe POV, and they were on topic. It was solely in your eyes that there was any problem (no one has EVER done that to me), and you created a problem when there wasn't one and alienated another editor. That was unnecessary. I hope that in the future you will use a different MO, because a repeat performance would not reflect good on you and would be harassment. There are better ways to achieve the same ends, unless your ends really are to insult others. I really doubt that. Collaboration, collegiality, civility, and AGF go hand in hand. Let's work toward better relations. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello
BullRangifer, in spite of supposed differences, I would like to express my gratitude to you. I love you.
Your recent editing history at War on Women shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I had made several comments on the issues, but you didn't respond. Instead you'd start new threads, and showed that you weren't really dealing with my comments or concerns. You just kept repeating ideas that had been shot down by several others. You were the one who had been reverting others several times, in sequence. That is edit warring, and that's why you got the warning. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Notifications box replacement prototypes released
Hey BullRangifer; Kaldari has finished scripting a set of potential replacements available to test and give feedback on. Please go to this thread for more detail on how to enable them. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
This comment regarding Energy medicine has been moved here by myself, from my subpage for IPs. -- BR
Hello,
Still getting used to the UI and procedures here. Regarding edits and reversions on May22 to Energy Medicine by IP 76.121.150.157: After reading more about how content on an article tries to reflect the pervasive attitude perceived in society I understand better why the initial edits may have warranted reversion. However, as I'm sure you're aware, this praiseworthy pursuit can be hijacked by the presence of a vocal minority who is level-headed enough to escape reversion. In my experience on both sides of this fence I have found Energy Medicine, for some reason, to be extremely popular; though its physical effects (in a similar way as one's mood) may be difficult to objectify clinically.
I also partially surmised that Neutrality, according to Wikipedia, does not necessarily mean a non-derogatory account of all major view points but a boundary against peripheral, emotional, and poorly referenced view points or work that do not reflect the predominant view.
At this point I would like to suggest that neutrality might also refer to the responsibility of the predominant view (as pre-Copernican astronomy once was) to report its tenants, evidence and reasoning without resorting to employment of references to derogatory statements (or similar suppressive devices) about competing views (which The Church at the time did not). Such statements should not be necessary if the evidence and reasoning are sound and only furthers division among viewpoints.
In such an article as Energy Medicine, where the predominant view appears to be against it, a derogatory article may appear unavoidable but this is not the case. Many parts of this article are negative with respect to the topic yet perfectly acceptable considering the evidence presented. Likewise, there may be points from the proponents camp that appeal to the detractors. As someone once said: "Nobody is smart enough to be 100% wrong."
There is controversy on this topic and it is not so one-sided as this article makes it appear. Therefore, shouldn't the article admit this fairly and openly? It seems insufficient to simply declare those who maintain reasons to disagree to be 'unsophisticated', 'magical-thinkers'. Yes, there is clinical evidence that support the negative side(there is also valid evidence in support of the positive). However, clinical evidence is far from infallible, especially if the underlying assumptions are inadequate.
In the Vitalism article there is reference to theories of Emergence. The human body is certainly such a complex system as to warrant a more conscientious and diligent appraisal of its attributes using our most applicable analytical tools (i.e. Complex Systems Theory and Network Science). See the Dr. Iris Bell reference in one of the edits mentioned above.
My simplified argument is basically an appeal to ignorance over arrogance. Maintaining open avenues of investigation is what is at issue. It is insufficient to declare that the route of energy medicine investigation has been tested and found to be of no clinical benefit when many competent and rational researchers take issue with the manner that testing.
Finally, the edit regarding the History section of the Energy Medicine article describes a misused citation. The first sentence of the History section contains a reference to article [24](Jonas & Crawford) that is supposed to account for it. However, there can be no mistake that no such sentiment exists in this article, having read it twice myself. Therefore, please also uphold the removal of that reference from the support of that sentence.
---Or may we discuss the other reason(s) for your reversion of these edits; such as being considered vandalism or sole editorship without collaboration, or at the request of NeilN for example. I am new to these policies and this interface so please be slightly more explicit in your replies where these are concerned. (PS. I have read much(not all) of the talk guidelines).
Kmpentland, you also posted to my talk page. May I suggest having this discussion at Talk:Energy medicine as talk pages of articles are where discussions about article content are supposed to go. Reading the above, I'm not sure what specific changes you want made. It's always good to suggest specific changes to the text and a reason (short, if possible) for each change. --NeilNtalk to me01:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi BullRangifer:
I saw your as a member of the Project Qworty effort.
I would like to invite you to come to the Erica Andrews article to give your thoughts and wisdom to what has gone on. I was one of the main editors of the article. I researched a lot about Andrews' life and career and placed most of the information on the page. One day in comes Qworty, Little Green Rosetta and Coffeepusher. To cut a long story short, it became very ugly between me and them as Qworty, LGR were deleting information out of the article. They would claim there citation source was weak and even when I would prove to them that the information was factual through sources, it was never enough. The article became a hot battleground for them and me. It got ugly. Very ugly. I stepped away for a while as I really have no desire to fight on Wikipedia with anyone. Then I was very surprised to see Qworty being exposed for what he did and got banned. Shortly after that LGR got banned. So as part of Project Qworty, I returned to the Andrews article and replaced the information that they had deleted. However, now I'm running into yet the same arguments with Coffeepusher and Howicus. So I would really like to invite you to review my edits and what they've reverted back to. My edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erica_Andrews&oldid=557673661.
The Andrews talk page contains my comments on my replacement of content per Project Qworty. They have claimed the content I have placed back is contentious. I have asked just what part of actual career achievements is contentious? Andrews really did win her titles, really did act in 2 movies, really did perform on stage, really did appear in music videos, and really did host shows and performed. Nothing I have placed there is malicious lies. I have not made up anything. I will agree that sometimes the source is not from a mainstream outlet like NY Times, Washington Post but it does not mean the information is erroneous or is contentious or are lies to libel Andrews. I would NEVER do that to anyone living or dead. The information has weight and carries value for a reader who is seeking to learn more about Andrews in her bio. My sole interest is to create a detailed article for this late entertainer so that fans or anyone who wants to learn about her can do so. I did a lot of research on Andrews and wish to share the information I have through the article. I have the greatest respect for the late Andrews and would never libel or create lies or tarnish her reputation in any way or to create an untrue persona of her. I hope you can chime in and make some sense so that the edit disputes can end. Thank you for your help. Lightspeedx (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) So this just showed up on my watchlist and my first reaction to "Fuck help" as a header is evidently "holy crap, shit just got real."Coffeepusher (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Morgellons".
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBotoperator / talk03:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Could I please get you to weigh in on at least Inquiry #3 (and on #1 and #2, of course, if you have anything to say in regard to those). TransporterMan (TALK) 16:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
About time someone blue-linked that
Hurrah for blue-linking SBM (website), but I think Novella was more instrumental in starting the site and is the closest they have to an (evil?) overlord, no? Or, you know, someone could just write an article for the project (hint, hint). I had missed seeing you around (my fault) - glad to see you are still at it. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, you're getting this message as you are involved in a case at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard which is currently open. Today DRN has undergone a big move resulting in individual cases on subpages as opposed to all the content on one page. This is to inform you that your case is now back on the DRN board and you will be able to 'watch' the subpage it's located on. Thanks, Cabe6403(Talk•Sign)13:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The system isn't working. There is no link that takes one to the subpage so it can be watched. I suspect some templates need to be fixed. In fact, there should not be any discussion content on the main page, only links to the subpages. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
nowiki
It looks as if VisualEditor has been enabled for IPs. That means that edits like this one (diff is your reversion) are not a result of deliberately adding nowiki tags. If you add any comment when reverting, something like "please review your changes before saving" would be more helpful. If we notice lots of these mistakes, a canned message for the user talk page would perhaps be sensible. --Mirokado (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear Mr. BullRangifer, I have been trying to contact you about your continued erasing of my edits to the Pseudoscience template. I am attempting to erase creationism, intelligent design, and climate change skepticism from the list as listing these issues as pseudoscience is offensive to the many religious readers on Wikipedia, is biased in favor of atheists, and is declaring issues that are still under debate as over. If you could respond on this page or open up a dispute page we could discuss this further. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:174.24.99.93(talk)23:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I know what this is about, and I'll deal with it. It's an IP who doesn't understand that edit warring, even if the editor is 100% right, is not allowed here. We edit by consensus, and when an edit is opposed, we use the BRD process to get a discussion going. This works better than edit warring. I have explained all this and have been trying to get this IP to discuss, but had no luck. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I saw your comment on the mediumship article. There's no article for believers in mediumship, but there is a category for spiritualists, which contains many of the believers. So people like Palmer, they could perhaps be added to that category. Fodor Fan (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Others have made that connection, but I'm not sure how. I wasn't familiar with KBlott's existence before tracking this IP sock. What seems to be the case is that it is their behavior, not their IP's location, that draws attention to them. Their behavior is usually disruptive enough to draw many eyes to them. If they would do what many have advised (create an account), they might be able to edit in peace.....forget that....their penchant for disruption and attacking other editors seems to be why they refuse to create an account. They rarely make constructive edits, and their edits are often disputed. You can ask User:GabeMc about them. I'm sure he knows far more than I do. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
FTR, I was never convinced that Kblott and the Rogers Cable troll were one in the same. User:Joefromrandb stated that Bullrangifer was the first to connect the two (I'm not sure if that's accurate), but as far as I know there has never been a concrete connection. I have some pretty good ideas about who the Rogers Cable troll is, but I don't see anyway that they could be definitively connected to another known user. Bullrangifer, if you are interested in my theory, then feel free to email me, as it would contain some sensitive personal information about the suspected sockmaster, but again, as far as I can tell, there is not likely anyway to categorically make the connection given what little I know about CU tools. GabeMc(talk|contribs)20:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. A lot of water under the bridge since then! I don't recall the details now, and have no problem with disconnecting the IP from Kblott. The connection may not have been very solid. It comes down to behavior in the end, although I hate sockpuppetry and think they should be blocked....IP hopping socks included. I'm also one of those editors who believe registration, after a short time editing with limited access, should be the norm. Otherwise, under our current rules, I only bother IPs who are disruptive or suspected of socking. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
When the information is good, but the source is dead or no longer available, as in this case, we try to find the source at the Internet Archive or some other place, or find another source, rather than deleting good text. It was easy to find a good source this time. Vandals often just delete the whole thing, which is why I also included that word as a "heads up". If we can't find a source, then we usually add a {{cn|date}} ([citation needed]) tag. In the future you might wish to do that. We are trying to build (ergo enlarge) the encyclopedia, not break it down or destroy it by removing good information.
If the matter were related to WP:BLP concerns, immediate removal and discussion on the talk page would usually be the proper procedure, but this has nothing to do with any living person. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Valjean. You have new messages at Talk:Quackwatch. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
ArbComPseudoscience and Flat Earth
Could you explain on the Flat Earth Talk page what this template has to do with the article? None of the criteria stated in the template explanation bear any relevance to the article. Strebe (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Result of clarification request concerning "Psuedoscience principles"
You participated in this recent clarification request. This message is to inform you that the clarification request has been closed and archived. If you would like to read the arbitrators' opinion section, the request has been archived to here. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK[•]08:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Unless it can be proven that an IP editor is deliberately changing their IP to create the appearance that there are two or more individuals commenting on a discussion, it is not sockpuppetry to edit under a dynamic IP. RyanVesey23:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I understand that problem, and it relates to motivation. Note that I have not labelled this particular editor a vandal or impugned their motives by assuming they were seeking to be deceptive. To deal with this problem effectively, we need to redefine sock puppet and what it means to "evade the scrutiny of other editors," which is part of our sock puppetry policy. That's what dynamic IPs do, whether they intend to do so or not. Motivation does not change the effect which a dynamic IP creates. It breaks up their contribution history so they can evade the scrutiny of other editors.
The basic rule here is unchanged.....one account per editor, with only a few exceptions, and this serves the purpose of collecting all their contribution history in ONE place. That's the norm and what our rules require.
This project works because collaboration is expected, and AGF is also expected. Editing in secret is a failure to AGF in the community. Collaboration requires openness and no secrecy, except for personal information/outing. We definitely draw the line there. No one is required to provide their real identity and we usually recommend that people choose an anonymous user name if there is the slightest possibility of problems. Requiring some people to register (and this happens all the time in this type of situation) in no way prevents them from editing, on the contrary. It enables them to edit more effectively, with more privacy, with access to a whole lot of things available only to registered editors.
I'm totally open to seeking a better way to do things, so if you have some ideas, I'd love to hear them. Right now I'm just working within the established rules we have....one account per editor, with all their contribution history in one place. Change the rules and I'll adapt. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
No, change the rules and I'll adapt. Right now, you are operating outside of our rules. Wikipedia accepts the contributions of IP editors and does not require them to create an account whether they have a dynamic or a static IP. You are free to think what you wish about anonymous editors and whether or not they should be forced to create an account, what you are not free to do is to tell IP editors that they must create an account. RyanVesey05:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not alone in requesting this particular IP (in his various guises using other IPs, as well as other IPs in the same situation) to create an account. That eliminates the problem of avoiding scrutiny. Even admins have done this. It is their example I'm following. The basic rule is unchanged....one account per person. You seem to be unaware of this. Although you're a relative newbie, no offense intended, you've been around long enough that you should know this. As far as this part of the sockpuppetry policy, motivation makes no difference. Some editors seem to think they have a right to privacy here at Wikipedia. They don't when it comes to their contribution histories. All editors should have access, at a single click, to the contribution history of another editor. There are very few situations where socks are allowed, and this is not one of them.
I've very aware that some IPs do very good work, and I NEVER bother them as long as they aren't disruptive or violate policy. Just because most vandals are IPs doesn't mean all IPs are vandals, but even the good IPs operate at a distinct disadvantage in at least two ways: (1) guilt by association, and (2) not taking advantage of the increased privacy, rights, and tools available only to registered users.
If you can get our "one account per editor" policy changed, then things will change, including how I deal with these situations, but not for the better. AGF, trust, openness, collaboration....kiss them goodbye.
Note that I have been very civil with this IP. I have not attacked them or harassed them by following them around and deleting all their edits (they do very little right now), nor have I called them a vandal. I've been very polite and explained very carefully. I have just made it clear that they are editing at a distinct disadvantage, and in violation of policy. Their response is to attack me, impugn my motives, and swear at me. I really suspect we're dealing with someone with either maturity issues or other types of issues, but I'm not a psychiatrist, not even on TV . The template on their page encourages them to create an account, and you should encourage them to do so as well.
A recurring problem with this IP (in their various guises) is this type of immature response, including using massive amounts of bandwidth on disruptive discussions on various talk pages, and very little on actual constructive editing. This editor has been around for a long time, but SPIs accomplish very little in these types of situations, which is one reason some disruptive editors with registered accounts choose to use dynamic IPs. They are nearly invulnerable because checkusers refuse to connect the IPs with a registered account. The disruptive editors discover this and start using dynamic IPs instead of their registered account, and that is called sockpuppetry. It is totally forbidden here. One MUST use one's registered account if one has one, except in rare situations, and the rules for those situations are clear. If I knew the registered account of this editor I would file an SPI, but I don't, so I and others, including admins, have encouraged them to register an account. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
An IP address does not count as an account, and I feel like you'd be hard pressed to find me a discussion that shows otherwise. It certainly doesn't say so in the sockpuppetry policy. We don't require editors to create accounts, and the IP editor can't magically obtain an IP address that will stay with him forever, so we've got two options. Option 1) We can be thankful for the IP editors contributions. Option 2) We can scare him off the site. I choose option 1. Do you have reason to believe that this IP editor is an editor who's account is currently blocked or that this IP editor is someone who has been community banned? RyanVesey06:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
One account per person is the rule. An account is an identity, and registered accounts and IPs serve as identity markers. IPs are "unregistered" accounts, in contrast to "registered" accounts. I don't know if English is your primary language, but that's implicit in the language. If a "registered account" exists, that implies the possibility for "unregistered accounts", which would be all IPs. One person isn't allowed to have many identities here. Using a dynamic IP makes them appear to be different people, regardless of their intention, and that enables those who are or become disruptive to game the system with impunity, and we don't allow that possibility to even exist, hence the one person one account rule.
IP editors aren't normally required to register an account, and I have no problem with that under the existing rules, even though I believe it would be better to require registration. Lots of editors hold that position. But it definitely happens that IPs are told to register or be blocked, and this has happened for years. In some dispute resolution situations some IPs have been ordered to register accounts as a condition of continued editing. Otherwise it's usually only when they have become problematic in some way, or that their contribution history is scattered, like this IP, that admins and other editors, like myself, request that they do so. If they edit peacefully and quietly, without drawing attention to themselves, they could edit using a dynamic IP for years with no trouble. No real harm done, in spite of the technicality of operating a sock farm.
You treat this matter as if having a registered account was a bad thing, but it's actually far better than editing as an IP. The IP has more options than you list. You wrote: "IP editor can't magically obtain an IP address that will stay with him forever, so we've got two options." No, he also has the option of registering an account. That is always an option for anyone, and it solves a load of problems.
I know they have been blocked under other IPs, and that's likely why I noticed them in the first place. I can't remember now. It's always some form of disruption that draws my attention to these IPs, not that they are IPs. Keep that in mind. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I am going to request that you strike your personal attack, here, and refrain from similar attacks in the future. If you have evidence, real evidence of meat-puppetry or socking on my part, take it to SPI, otherwise, keep your mouth shut in regards to unsubstantiated personal attacks. I will follow up on this at ANI if necessary. Regards, GregJackPBoomer!01:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I'll redact the last portion. I hope that will help. I certainly didn't mean meat puppet in the sense of a sock suddenly appearing to defend the side of blocked users, only as an editor taking sides with them, and I'm sure no one misunderstood. That's the general sense of the term I've seen used here at times. Regular editors can also be guilty of meat puppetry. When blocked users and their friends deceptively seek to take revenge on those who monitor their activities, that's a serious attack on standard sock hunting practice. Defending them is an encouragement to socking. Considering the attacks I've been experiencing at AN/I, I guess I got caught up in that spirit and responded in kind, and I should be above that. My intention still stands, and that is to get you to step back and take a broader look at what's really happening, and how this started. It's an extension of ancient historic attacks by this user on other editors, and now me. One needs to be careful not to defend attacks by those sympathetic to banned editors and their friends. That's why you need to exercise due diligence and at least check out the basics. One must watch the company one keeps. Otherwise, thanks for the heads up and I'll try to be more careful. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 198.228.216.168
You had indicated here that you were not going to tag anymore suspected socks, but would alert an admin. This agreement was made while the community was considering a topic ban on your tagging suspected socks, and it appeared that there was consensus for such a topic ban. Does this edit at User:S.A.Muthu DME mean that you are withdrawing your agreement? If it were a one time breach I can overlook it, but if it is an indication of your intent to start retagging suspected socks, I will have to bring this back up to the community to readdress it. Regards, GregJackPBoomer!16:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I am not withdrawing my agreement at all. You too were involved in noticing this now blocked editor's improper behavior. This was just a lapse in procedure which I caught. The block had been made several days ago, but the admin forgot to place the tag. The other socks were tagged with that tag, and this sock was also blocked in the same manner. I also notified an admin of other socks, and they were also blocked. I don't think I tagged any of them. Even by your strict interpretation of that confusing wording at Hsock, the tag is proper. Don't you agree?
I know it's difficult for you, but please try to AGF. You should have noticed by now, during your campaign to undo my work, that I have not been the only editor or admin to engage in the behavior you have so strongly chastised me for. You have undone the work of others as well, and barely scratched the surface of what has been accepted and standard practice for many years. According to your definition, there are quite a few of us terrible editors and admins around. Our work has always been backed up by other admins, and yet you assume bad faith in all of us! BTW, I learned how to use these categories and to tag IPs and socks by following the example of admins!
BTW, your emptying of categories has been in flagrant violation of the rules stated in the CfD template, so maybe you should back off and undo the work you've done. You have been destroying evidence. If I were to follow your example, I'd start a thread at AN/I, but I'm not like you. I don't harass and seek vengeance against other experienced editors in that manner. I AGF that even seeming errors were not made out of ill will. Especially when dealing with editors who have much more experience, I assume that they may know something about the rules and normal procedures which I don't know. That's where you've gone wrong in this case. You have targeted and harassed me on very thin grounds.
Failures to AGF are one of the most basic and serious mistakes an editor can make. It all goes downhill from there. You have also failed to exercise due diligence in many ways, although repeatedly urged to do so. Although you have barely half the edits I have, and have been here a shorter time, I have AGF and considered you an experienced editor who has done much good work. Good for you! It's a shame how you have handled this whole matter, considering you have been inspired by a likely blocked sock in just another of his many incarnations, and you have bought his arguments. This whole affair is below you. This matter is far from settled, and there is some disagreement among experienced admins about what to do. As long as the policy wording is muddled, we'll have problems. Maybe you didn't notice, but several admins have defended my actions. Regardless of that, I intend to stick by my agreement. If I goof up, I expect you will AGF and notify me immediately and I'll fix it.
You mentioned policy on your user subpage. I'm not discussing whether there is anything "wrong with the policy." Don't you see that the wording you favor is inconsistent with the name of the category? Blocked =/= suspect. Why does this "suspects" category exist if it were to only be used for "blocked" socks? We already have other categories for blocked socks. This wording needs to be fixed. That's the issue I'm primarily interested in, not whether the policy is right or not. With the present wording we can't even be sure what it really means. Nonsense cannot be consistently interpreted one way or the other, except by only choosing the possibility one likes and ignoring other possibilities that could be just as right.
In this case you have chosen an interpretation that flies in the face of the accepted practice for many years. The ambiguity needs to be eliminated, and I don't really care whether it ends one way or the other. I'll follow the policy either way. You should be interested in clearing this up, because, with this contradictory wording, all your edit summaries are like ice skating on very thin ice, and it's melting fast without any effort of mine. Your undoing edits have revealed the involvement of many more editors and admins who did as I have done, and have also revealed that my edits have been according to normal practice. You just didn't understand that, but still jumped in very aggressively in defense of the specious arguments of a likely banned editor. -- -- Brangifer (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
GregjackP, I haven't read al of BullRangifer's comment, but your argument is a bit silly. It could be that you didn't review the situation well enough, but there is absolutely no good reason to keep BullRangifer from making good tags on users who have already been blocked as sockpuppets. RyanVesey14:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Ryan Vesey, I don't have a problem with him tagging socks who have already been blocked, but since he stated he was not going to tag any, I was wondering if this meant that he was going to resume tagging anyone he thought "might" be a sock. GregJackPBoomer!15:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Edit warring
Your recent editing history at Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You haven't read WP:BRD, as advised. It is not written BRRRD. Only when consensus has been achieved can one return to that edit. You are the one who violated BRD, so you are the one who started an edit war. BRD is the only known way to prove who started it. Even though it isn't policy, it is widely accepted by the community and is used by admins when determining who to block. You were also warned on your talk page, and I've mentioned it on the article talk page. Unless you revert yourself, I'll report this. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Indeed!
As I browsed your page, it was interesting to see that you have a history of harassing other editors or using personal attacks towards users with a viewpoint different from your own. Good to know. Either way "I just want you to step back and think about this. Look at the big picture and see what you haven't achieved." DrBonesaw (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
DR/N
Hi BullRangifer, I wanted to let you know that Michael0156, whose edits you and I have both reverted on NaturalNews, has opened a dispute resolution noticeboard thread here, and he seems to want you to summarize the dispute. Jinkinsontalk to me12:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
DR without any extensive discussion, just ONE comment and not waiting for replies??!! Thanks for the heads up, but it looks like he's already blocked. Is there any chance he's Mike Adams? -- Brangifer (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
No, I happen to know what his real name is, and it's not Mike Adams. As I mentioned on Talk:NaturalNews, he is moderately well known on YouTube for going on vaccine-related videos and posting comments about how some children shouldn't receive vaccines and how they may cause autism and other such nonsense (basically the same stuff he inserted into the Naturalnews article). As I stated on the DRN, I once exchanged comments with him back in 2012. Jinkinsontalk to me01:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
....if I get the time. In the mean time, others are welcome to do it. I do such things by hand, and it's a painstaking and time consuming process. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi BullRangifer!! We want to invite you to play The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive game that can help you become a great contributor to Wikipedia. It's a fun interstellar journey, and you'll learn how to edit Wikipedia in about an hour. We hope to see you there!
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Postcard_of_the_lynched_Jesse_Washington,_front_and_back.jpg){kind=link}