Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Clean Copy (talk | contribs) at 10:58, 12 September 2012 (→Stop canvassing: Assume good faith.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

--/Archive --/Archive2 --/Archive3 --/Archive Waldorf project

Nomination of Whole medical systems for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Whole medical systems is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Whole medical systems until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Anthroposophical medicine

Please remember that adding in-text attribution is just a form of watering down the statement. I've never heard of this topic before today, but it looks like most of it falls under category 1 in WP:FRINGE. Even stuff like the mistletoe is unproven, and while more evidence might show that it works, it is wishful thinking to claim that we know it does.

Also a note that you're at 3RR on the article (4RR if you count your attempt to add "some"). Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting idea, that citations water down a statement. I've never heard that suggested before! "Stuff like the mistletoe" is supported by research; we call that evidence-based medicine. hgilbert (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

While that may be interesting, it isn't what was said. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I shouldn't have said "watered down." The point is that in-text attribution (i.e. saying "X said...") implies that something is an opinion, and leaving out that attribution implies that it's a fact. There is a place for both; for example, in general, the scientific consensus is presented as a fact, while the proponents of fringe science are attributed.

About mistletoe, according to the article the support is not all that extensive. Besides which, you can't claim that any treatment works until you carry out one or more properly run phase III clinical trials. Even treatments for which it is widely thought they will be effective often fail at that stage. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

We differ as to whether Quackwatch and Bob Carroll are definitive sources for scientific consensus. They are skeptics, not scientists. I would look to the scientific literature for evidence of the scientific consensus.

Vis a vis mistletoe: The article should only report the research results to this point, which I think it does. As you say, these allow no definitive conclusion at this point. hgilbert (talk) 08:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

If you still think the statement is not reliably sourced, then take it to WP:RSN. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Stop canvassing

While the above template covers user space canvassing, I dropped by to let you know that it's inappropriate for you to spam an AFD across talk pages simply because you think they will attract people sympathetic to your cause. Deletion discussions are listed at WP:AFD and generally attract neutral established editors who understand deletion criteria. Please also note that WP:CONSENSUS is note a vote and increasing the traffic to the page will have little effect on the outcome if the rationals aren't policy based. If the rationals are policy based then you don't need to worry about numbers, just the strength of the arguments. Sædon 09:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing covers user talk pages. A notification on the talk page of closely related topics is normal practice in my experience. hgilbert (talk) 09:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing covers more than user talk pages, it even includes off wiki canvassing. IRWolfie- (talk)

Perhaps you should read Misplaced Pages:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Neutral notifications on talk pages are not canvassing.

You seem very interested in off wiki canvassing. I do not engage in it. I sometimes wonder about certain groups of skeptics that flock to articles together, however. hgilbert (talk) 10:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you making a specific allegation? Either substantiate it or drop it. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

How would one substantiate off-wiki canvassing? Hard thing to demonstrate. I assume, however, that you would never engage in such a thing. hgilbert (talk) 10:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

"a place for both"

Hgilbert, may I intrude a comment here on the issue implicit in the above remark from another editor: "...in general, the scientific consensus is presented as a fact, while the proponents of fringe science are attributed." (04:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC) )

• That would be fair enough as an editing convention if it were sufficiently obvious to ordinary readers and they are not being short-changed in respect of the value of the information being offered to them. Is that not an acknowledged Misplaced Pages principle?
• In this respect, there is a tendency for such a usage to obscure the actual fact of the larger (epistemological?) question: at what stage and subject to what provisoes or reservations is a point of view (not excluding anything spoken of as "mainstream") to be held as the current "consensus" in academic, professional, official and public discourse, given the fact that often part of today's consensus could have been yesterday's heresy and may be to-morrow's footnote in history?
• And is that not part of the reason why Misplaced Pages guidelines enjoin careful editing to avoid letting such conventions be used as if they have the validity of eternal truth, whose proponents have the priviilege of using loaded language against others?
• In consequence, editors need to be aware that terms such as "mainstream" and "fringe", while part of everyday speech, are in themselves unavaoidably tendentious and normally unsuited to the stricter methods of scientific inquiry, exposition and apologetics.
• If the lead paragraphs of the articles on "Mainstream science", Criticism of science and "Fringe science" allow "a place for both" and were to be written with sufficient neutrality, would it not be good editing practice in articles where such terms are used to make the link to the articles by way of further explanation at the reader's option?

---This comes from a mere novice in Misplaced Pages editing, of but 5 months standing, namely...Qexigator (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)