Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:33, 17 January 2009

Skepticism NA‑class

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism NA This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Alternative medicine NA‑class

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine NA This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 May 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 February 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives
1

"mucoid plaque" Pubmed search

I noticed that the first reference is a Pubmed query. That's probably WP:OR. I've noticed that Pubmed will sometimes not return results when it should. For example, "simple green" has no results. Yet I recently added an reference from Pubmed with "simple green" in the title, over at the Simple Green article. What's the deal? Should that "reference" be removed? II | (t - c) 09:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Without going into the reasons why the reference is thus formatted, I agree it's not ideal. The question is: what level of source is necessary to cite the point that this entity is not a recognized medical condition, has no medical research to support it, and is confined to the more promotional areas of the webopshere? MastCell  22:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This should be removed with prejudice. It is blatant OR to use search results to verify information. Search engines have flaws, and are not a source in itself. In order to source the statement "X is not recoignised by Y", you need to cite an RS that states such a finding. Surely there are books or journal articles that state something along tehse lines. Such findings should be attributed where possible. Eg. Intelligent design:

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."

--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. The National Academy of Sciences is not going to comment on mucoid plaque, so we are left with parity of sources. Mucoid plaque is a purported medical entity substantiated only in a promotional book and on websites which sell products designed to remove said plaque. There is absolutely no reliable source supporting it as a credible concept - unless you're aware of something I'm not, in which case please enlighten me.

That said, parity of sources comes into play. If a handful of experts with relevant credentials have dismissed this as hokum, then that is certainly as notable, if not more so, than the badly sourced claims from marketers of colon cleansers. This is not "bias" or "POV", but a simple implementation of this encyclopedia's most basic precepts. MastCell  23:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Threhsold for[REDACTED] verifibility not truth. If you can't source you can't say it. It is simple as that. Do not attempt to subvert it by creating non-existant sources through OR.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying no criticism should be included. I am saying that criticisms based on OR should not be included. --ZayZayEM (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No need to debunk

This article has multiple issues to do with its subjective tone, loaded language, use of non-reliable sources, use of innapropriate references, overuse of quotes, etc. etc.

Misplaced Pages is not a place to play out a list of debunking sham medicine.

No matter how disgusting, harmful and tragic you feel con-artists like Anderson are, this is not the place to express that.

So far this article appears to:

• quote mine - it uses chopped up quotes to clearly attack, rather than describe the concept of mucoid plaques
• conduct original research (removed with prejudice) - if you want to cite the absence of something, do not look for it, find someone who says there is an absence of something, and attribute it accordingly
• use innapropriate tone (partly corrected) - "John Wayne myth", "myth" referes to spiritual stories that hold significance in culture and religion - as much as CAM may rely on similar tactics to spirituality and religion, they are not quite that similar, this is like calling ID a "theory"
• reliance on a single reference (Anderson) to describe what mucoid plaques are - yes, I know it is his idea, but I think other people have started cottoning onto to this money-maker and have been adding to the idea. A neutral article will ignore Anderson as an authority (unless the literature consistently refers to him as such), and survey CAM literature for an accurate global description of what they claim it is. Using Anderson alone is close to strawmanning it.
• arguments from authority. Three doctors are paraded as authorities to debunk this pseudomedical concept. There titles are bandied about like they mean something. They appear to be three ordinary doctors. Being a university professor does not mean anything special. This is a tactic used by peddlers of muck, please do not lower Misplaced Pages to that standard.

I hope some of this criticism is well accepted. Just being a nice guy.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be well-accepted? Just because you tagged the article before attempting to actually discuss your concerns, used a bunch of accusatory edit summaries, and demanded the equivalent of the National Academy of Sciences to "debunk" this?

In all seriousness, the basic issue is that this is essentially a non-notable topic. It fails WP:FRINGE, which demands mention in reliable and mainstream sources - unless you count the "debunking" by a handful of physicians with relevant expertise. I'm not particularly inclined to the idea that these sources establish notability on the one hand, but must be downplayed or editorially "softened" on the other.

Feel free to find additional reliable sources describing mucoid plaque. Hell, as you point out, Anderson's book doesn't meet our criteria, so even one reliable source would be a start. I've looked, and not found any, but maybe you'll have better luck in your survey. Until then, parity of sources applies; physicians with relevant expertise are more than adequate as sources when we're heavily referencing Anderson's book and a handful of colon-cleanse websites.

The lead needs to accurately and proportionately summarize our sources. Since our most reliable and most numerous sources are of the opinion that this is a non-existent condition, that should be accurately reflected in the lead. When appropriate sources are critical, we don't go out of our way to soft-sell their criticism - that would be WP:SYN and a violation of WP:NPOV. MastCell  23:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No demands. I am using NAS as an example. If this is non-notable nom for delete. I really don't mind.

Anderson's books clearly do meet our RS criteria. And they are well represented in the article. I am criticising the use of only Anderson's books. That is relying on primary sources. If no credible third party resources (by credible I mean non-marketing material, CAM *journals* or alt-magazines might be considered credible on CAM subjects) can be found then I would support a non-notable del nom.

There is no need to soft-sell critcism. There is a need to accurately portray it. Which means attributing the source appropriately (who said it, in what context, and NOT puching their credentials unless relevant).--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Richard Anderson's books are published by Christobe Publishing, which appears to be a vanity press devoted solely to publishing the work of Richard Anderson. They are essentially self-published work, and his website (mastercleanse.com) is a promotional, self-published website. Neither has any independent editorial oversight, nor a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy as mentioned in our reliable sources guideline. Richard Anderson's books and website absolutely do not meet WP:RS; if you have the slightest doubt about this, I think we ought to seek outside input, because this seems fairly rudimentary to me. MastCell  06:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. clear guidelines are in place for self published works. this article verily violates #2 (contentious - erm.. WP:MADEUP), #3 (unduly self-serving), and #7 (a section is primarily based un such material). #2 I am willing to concede that a self-published source full of amde-up hogwash is a fin source, as long as it is not presented as some sort of false authority. Anderson is obviously some sort of authority on Mucoid plaque, but he is not an authority on anatomy and physiology.

Hence why I feel tagging this article as very shoddy is appropriate, and I am confused why calls for clean-up and reassessment of a shoddy tit-for-tat POV-style have been met with alarm.--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

In "most" people

That mucoid plaque can be created and some few people do find it and picture it is pretty much undeniable. What is dubious about it is that Anderson, the sellers of his products, and their many fans, believe and are taught to believe that mucoid plaque is a danger threatening most supposedly healthy people, IOW they make a rare thing into a common thing. That's where they go wrong, and their critics will likewise go wrong if they claim that mucoid plaque doesn't exist at all. It is the cause of it; its supposed ill effects; its need for treatment; and its mass marketing, that are all hallmarks of this quackish scam. I have therefore added a few words to ensure that misunderstandings don't ensue. -- Fyslee / talk 04:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel that mucoid plaque should not be described primarily as an intestinal lining, but perhaps as an eliminated product (note: not excreted). This would appear to be a more uncontroversial description of what mucoid plaque "is" (in reality). This is what I was hoping of ultimately hoping to steer the article towards (I could have been much more radical in my sweeping changes), but as I've said, I'm backing away for quite a while.--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. It is an eliminated product that is claimed to be an unhealthy intestinal lining, if I understand this correctly. Do you have a proposed wording to replace an existing one that isn't quite accurate? Please propose it here. -- Fyslee / talk 05:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Content sections

I've retitled some content section titles, but haven't tweaked the content. The content should possibly be tweaked to better match these titles, that I feel are appropriate for an encyclopedia article.

Basically material should be organised to best just describe the concept. Material shoould be focused on mucoid plaque, and not colonic irrigation which is a separate article.--ZayZayEM (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Can I suggest and "explanations" or "causes" sections. First introduce the alleged causes (would allow somewhere more appropriate for previous "Andersons' claims" material). Then introduce the idea that cleansing pills themselves create these "plaques". I am worried about attempting to sort of make this fit WP:MEDMOS, as it may give an illusion that it is a medical article, but really the style should understandably follow suit (it is a fictitious-ish disease) just that the content will be different (ie. controversial statements should not go unchallenged, and appropriate use of "claims", "Andersons says" to note opinions and speculation rather than fact.--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've gone and done a rewrite. Much of the information was sourced innapropriately and removed where it could not be reworded

I would be in favour of removing a lot of Anderson's self published sources. He is not a reliable source, and seems to twist truths in favour of his interpretation (noooooo... really?). He should be used for barest of minimal - ie. his description of the characteristics of plaque, what he claims causes it, and he is a "true believer" who thinks the medical profession are just ig'nant or his genius. Wherever possible (actually hopefully in all instances) these should be backed up by independent (!) third party publications. Surely some CAM journal has done a special feature on this hokery.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV issues

The sentence:

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

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

Also, the sentence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Skeptics

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

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

Verified timeline

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

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

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

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

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

Questions that could well be answered in the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good CAM Bad CAM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sourcing and Parity

The straight.com article is not very helpful .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inadvertent Skeptics for Anderson?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long-term decisions

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

I suggest:

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

Things that might be included in the list of decisions:

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

Ways to put items on the list could include

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

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

Short response: Ummm... no.

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

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

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

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

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

• NA-Class Skepticism pages
• NA-importance Skepticism pages
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• NA-Class Alternative medicine pages