|
|
|
|
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)[reply]
- Herbalism-same as above Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Homeopathy-ridiculous Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 barley 16:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Medicinal plants of the American West-more unsourced POV edits Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternative medicine-more of the same Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Naturopathic medicine-Actually not completely off the wall, but some parts are bad. Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, Duesberg hypothesis and poppers could both use more work, and talk about endangering lives... especially the former. MastCell Talk 18:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 Talk 19:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Arguably, Reflexology, though that's probably not actually dangerous, just ridiculously oversold. Adam Cuerden talk 00:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Vaccine controversy. Anti-vaxers are really dangerous. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hulda Clark. A dangerous scam. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Gary Null. Advocates nonsense. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Joseph Mercola. Advocates nonsense and repeated run ins with the FTC. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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; [1]. Phloem (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- try Eisner in The death of psychotherapy, Chapter 3 "Cathartic Therapies:From Primal to est". A little out of date but .... Fainites barley 22:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
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:
|
|
|
|
|
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)[reply]
- Task force? What's a task force? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 wikipedia 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)[reply]
- If I may step in here, rvita.com is not a reliable source of unbiased information. Please see in particular Wikipedia'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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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 Talk• Contributions 00:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Freethought
As a recent convert to Atheism, I read your user page, And I can't tell if you are more leaning toward Atheist or Agnositc. I was also wondering, may I start a discussion about the Impobability of the existance of God more? I desperately want to talk, and I also have signed up for the Atheist Project, so I can help improve articles. Well, cheers for Rational Thinking! - 08:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I have tried several times and cannot access his blog. But you need to tell User:Jayjg what you told me. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just tried the link, and it still works. Maybe it's blocked somehow on your computer! Damn, I would like to get your POV on it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is easy. Cut and paste, and email the contents. --Filll (talk | wpc) 22:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- slr isn't an email kind of guy! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
