User talk:Orangemarlin - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SirFozzie (talk | contribs) at 02:07, 31 May 2008 (→Just a suggestion.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:07, 31 May 2008 by SirFozzie (talk | contribs) (→Just a suggestion.: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Click here to leave me a message. Remember, if you leave a message here, I'll reply here.

Important Items to Watch

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

FACs needing feedback view • edit
Belvidere Apollo Theatre collapse	Review it now
William D. Hoard	Review it now

Featured article removal candidates view edit
Boogeyman 2	Review now
Shoshone National Forest	Review now
Northrop YF-23	Review now
Emmy Noether	Review now
Concerto delle donne	Review now

Articles on Quackademic Medicine

Below are articles articles, mostly medical but some in the sciences, that promote ideas or POV's that might endanger human life. Feel free to add your own, but I'm watching and cleaning up these articles. Please sign if you add something.

List of medicinal herbs-lacks any references, and implies these drugs can help.Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Herbalism-same as above Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Homeopathy-ridiculous Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Attachment therapy-don't let your children go there Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC) This has been rewritten since User:AWeidman (Dr Becker-Weidman) and his 6 socks were indef banned. Fainites 16:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Medicinal plants of the American West-more unsourced POV edits Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Alternative medicine-more of the same Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Naturopathic medicine-Actually not completely off the wall, but some parts are bad. Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Er, Duesberg hypothesis and poppers could both use more work, and talk about endangering lives... especially the former. MastCell 18:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd also add ephedra to the list... I did a lot of work cleaning it up and it's not so bad anymore (it actually references the serious harms and deaths associated with ephedra supplements in a way that goes beyond referring to the FDA as jackbooted thugs, now). But much of the same material is duplicated in ECA stack, which I haven't been as successful with, and which I fear gives an erroneous impression as to the safety record of ephedra-containing dietary supplements. MastCell 19:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Arguably, Reflexology, though that's probably not actually dangerous, just ridiculously oversold. Adam Cuerden 00:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Vaccine controversy. Anti-vaxers are really dangerous. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hulda Clark. A dangerous scam. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Gary Null. Advocates nonsense. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Joseph Mercola. Advocates nonsense and repeated run ins with the FTC. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
rebirthing, reparenting, Power therapies. Primal Scream therapy. I would treat Neurolinguistic Programming as the main hub for many of them though. Its a subject that seems to be the main pseudoscientific umbrella that is used by most of them to give the false impression of scientific appearance. Its incredibly widespread and extremely misleading to the less scientifically literate. Here is a good source; . Phloem (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

anyone who wants to work on this complex of article, I'll be glad to help. Time we got to the pseudo-psychology. DGG (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

try Eisner in The death of psychotherapy, Chapter 3 "Cathartic Therapies:From Primal to est". A little out of date but .... Fainites 22:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

coral calcium. I just put in some references, but there is a lot more that can be done. That someone would think that coral calcium can be used as a panacea for all types of cancer when in fact excess calcium can, in some cases, be detrimental to certain cancer treatments means that we should be very careful how the claims of the coral calcium fanatics are treated. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Mannatech. An article about a company that purveys sugars, calling them health products (glyconutrients). Antelan 02:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Medical Articles

Below are articles that I believe, along with any trusted science and medicine editors who may wish to contribute, meet the simple test of being well-written, do not give undue weight to fringe theories, and are either WP:GA or WP:FA:

Task Forces

How do I start a task force for the Ducks page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trakrecord (talk • contribs) 23:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Task force? What's a task force? OrangeMarlin 00:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Natural Standard Acupuncture Flashcard

Hi orangemarlin, I recently tried to add a footnote for an efficacy table by natural standard at rvita.com, but it got deleted. Can you help me understand why? Natural standard is one of the most respected research organizations in iCAM and rvita is the only consumer site that makes the information available.

http://www.naturalstandard.com

Dr. andrew weil is on the medical board for example...

sorry, i'm new to the[REDACTED] thing and want to learn more from a poweruser like yourself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exodus777 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If I may step in here, rvita.com is not a reliable source of unbiased information. Please see in particular Misplaced Pages's policy concerning self published sources. Additionally, Dr. Weil is an advocate for a particular brand of non-mainstream medicine, which must be considered when deciding how an article should weight his opinion. We also have a guideline on fringe theories which applies acupuncture in the context of medicine and may be of interest to you, particularly the Notability versus acceptance section. Happy editing. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 15:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

MEDMOS

I apologize for inflicting this editor on you. For the background, I suggest taking a look at Talk:Da Costa's syndrome. I've got very little time right now, but this is the one article I'm trying to keep up with, since there's an ongoing dispute with this editor there. (The usual: all sources, even by known experts, are "unreliable" unless they line up with his quirky POV.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey don't worry about it. I've been battling this POV warrior for months. I just saw he was blocked, so your ANI was helpful. I wish you had mentioned it, I would have gotten involved. OrangeMarlin 00:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Lung cancer

We've got a tobacco apologist in action. For some reason, this doesn't appear on the obvious Junk science lists. LeadSongDog (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Alzheimer's disease

Hi OM, I have a free day tomorrow which I'll devote to the FAC. Best wishes, Graham. GrahamColm 21:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks. Then let's get AIDS back to FA!!!! OrangeMarlin 22:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential

Orangemarlin,

Would you be interested in helping me with The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential. History: the article started off as an advert. After a short edit war between a supporter and fellow WP:MED editor (since retired) I had a go at rewriting it as NPOV as I could stomach. That was 2 years ago. Since then, I've watched it. Every now again, some fan or member of staff comes along and deletes the criticism. Over the last two months, two editors have come along and added a whole lot of positive stuff while slowly chipping away at the negative. I just haven't had the time to look into it but tonight decided that I simply must. See my comments at Talk:The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential. I have no connection with the IAHP at all and hadn't even heard about it before WP. I think the article needs revised. Shorter. Appropriate weight. Avoid separate support/criticism sections. If you are interested in collaboration, perhaps a sandbox is the place to work on such a revision? I don't think it is a huge task, but will probably involve a battle. Are you up for it? You can respond here. Colin° 22:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If this causes me to start drinking, the guilt will be on your head. OrangeMarlin 22:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I know you asked me to watch this article, and I've been sadly delinquent, mostly just watching an SPA slant the article more and more. I was waiting to see the final result before diving in too much, but I agree that there are some problems afoot there that need to be addressed and will try to provide additional input. MastCell 22:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow. WP:WEIGHT is a serious problem. The "support" section is huge, and frankly, support from George Bush (you've got to be kidding, like that's someone I trust) and Gorbachev means nothing. You're right, this article is a huge advertisement. OrangeMarlin 22:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a suggestion.

No matter how much you justify your actions, such as the section you recently archived in archive 9, you are incorrect. Wrong. Racism is uncivil, and, therefore, can be treated in any manner chosen. There is no reason to treat a racist, anti-semitic pig anything but uncivilly is fundamentally against the Five Key Pillars of Misplaced Pages and a violation of Misplaced Pages's rules of No personal attacks. I strongly suggest that you cut out the attacks in the future. You may disagree with their words, but you do NOT get to be incivil because you judge others to be incivl. An eye for an eye leaves Misplaced Pages blind. SirFozzie (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Archives