Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:39, 29 September 2011

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Regulation_and_prevalence_of_homeopathy#United_Kingdom

Think I've got this in line with reality - it contained several counterfactual statements, like implying that the Faculty of Homeopaths was a branch of the NHS (!!!) and stating that the government rejected the Evidence check on homeopathy, when in fact it put the decision to the Primary Care Trusts, many of which do not fund homeopathy anymore. It also tried to use figures from 2006 to paint a rosy picture of funding in the UK, when the latest reports show a very, very significant decline.

Examples of appalling material removed:

No, it does NOT operate the Faculty of Homeopathy.

You may not think that's particularly bad - until you realise the article's about present day regulation and prevalence, and no other country - not even Germany, which created it - has Homeopathy's glorious past triumphs described.

The article also lied by ommission:

Not mentioned: West Kent PCT closed Tunbridge Wells Homeopathic Hospital two years later, which tends to change figures. Also, the article, until today, failed to mention any figures from after 2006. Given the last three years have seen major campaigns against homeopathy, it tends to change things.

Remaining problems

I find the other sections of this article dubious, given how the U.K. section attempted to misrepresent the situation. In particular, it has a tendency to a rather pro-homeopathic tone:

That's right: The article presents the loss of nosodes - fake vaccines, which Britain's NHS has had to do an entire campaign warning people not to take - as a bad thing, and much of the article's language is in this "Isn't it horrible when Homeopathy is restrained, but isn't it great when it isn't?" sort of tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.223.49 (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2011

Siddhamrit Surya Kriya Yoga

I won't even try to describe it: this new article has to be seen to be believed. The only question is whether it should be reduced to a two-sentence stub or deleted entirely. I am also wondering whether it may be a recreation of a previously deleted article, but I couldn't find an AfD for it. Looie496 (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw it, and I still don't believe it. I can't see any reason to retain any of it. The Hindustan Times, Chandigarh Tribune and Indian Express sources are not really articles, but announcements obviously based on press releases by the proponents. The other sources are crap. Fails on notability alone. Recommend nominating it for AfD. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Related to Swami Budhpuri Ji which has the encyclopedia claiming that he has not eaten food since 2004, and Siddhamrit Surya Kriya Yoga "may be used easily by one and all to alleviate all physical, mental and spiritual problems". - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Same problems. Add it to the AfD to do list. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The same editor(s) responsible for the Siddhamrit Surya Kriya Yoga article created this article Swami Budhpuri Ji the day this article Swami Buddhapuri Ji was deleted. Sneaky little bastards, ain't they. I recommend we discard AGF and move to directly to deletion of both

Please avoid the temptation to call editors names, it is never helpful. Looie496 (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I was about to AfD it, but Fastily fortunately saved me the time. Looie496 (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I request a speedy delete (db-g11). And it was deleted within a few minutes. You might want to change your AfD to speedy delete, and link to the present discussion in the edit summary. I'm reporting the perps at ANI now. They are both spam-only accounts with no contructive edits. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

PROBABLE SOCK: Bcsadhak (talk · contribs) - because it's NOT AT ALL suspicious that the users first and only edit oi to remove a template warning the page was copyvio. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Kamboja

For those of you who remember the Kamboja fancruft mess we had a couple of years ago (parts of which we still do), it might be cropping up again, only it now extends to Atlantis and Egypt. —SpacemanSpiff 20:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely bonkers. I think it isn't out of control at the moment, but we still have lots of the old cruft around. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Cross-quarter days

Do editors agree that the new Category Cross-quarter days is unnecessary, and tending to promotion of fringiness? And indeed the category Quarter days is unnecessary. For info, quarter days were important in European calendars from the Middle Ages onwards, coinciding roughly with the equinoxes and solstices, and linked to Christian holidays. There are also festivals occurring between the quarter days, but identifying them as "cross quarter days" is surrounded by much unfounded supposition. I cleared a lot of that out of the article, and am now dismayed to see a category founded. And we see Chinese festivals now assimilated to the European ones, which is weird given that Cross-quarter days is a subcategory of Christian festivals and holidays. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd keep the category quarter days (they are undoubtably significant, and worth grouping therefore), but "cross-quarter days" should only be kept if it's proved that this term is actually used in Neo-paganism, and then only as a descripption of Neopagan belief, like the equally apocryphal Burning Times (the idea that the witch trials were persecuting genuine groups of real witches, hence proving the Catholic Church right? (I'd be surprised if significant non-modern usage is found.)86.178.193.2 (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but even if Neo-Pagans do group these days as cross-quarter days, they are also traditional and/or Christian holidays, which is their meaning for many more people than follow Neo-Paganism. I am going to put it in Categories for deletion. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that it being part of Neopaganism AND something else necessarily means it can't be categorised in the Neopagan way (it's just a couple words at the bottom, after all), but agree there's no evidence this is a common division, even there. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This is my proposed solution. Keep Category:Quarter days. Add Candlemas, Lammas, Martinmas and Whitsun on the grounds that they were quarter days in Scotland. Make sure that the Scottish system is discussed with sufficient prominence in the article Quarter day, and that Term day is a redirect. Merge Cross-quarter day with Wheel of the year, which is where the parallels with Lughnasa, Beltane et al. can be discussed. Propose deletion of Category:Cross quarter days. (If I can work out how to propose a category for deletion, because it seems cumbersome.) Itsmejudith (talk) 15:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. =) 86.178.193.2 (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Dog Whisperer

Can I get an opinion on whether these studies of the dog whisperer amount to fringe theories? These have previously been deleted as "self-published" and again as "original research" and it is now suggested that they are "fringe theories":

The Dog Whisperer program has been the focus of a number of research papers from a variety of discipline perspectives including family therapy and ethology.

A research paper that examines the role of family pets in family processes and relationships, says that in Dog Whisperer Cesar Millan goes to the family home and works much like a structural family therapist, helping to build an effective family structure and establish hierarchies and boundaries.

In an observational study of the philosophies, methods, and skill sets used by dog trainers, one researcher concluded that there were two very different methods that dominated current dog training: a modern version of dominance/obedience training demonstrated on Dog Whisperer and a method based on reward and behavioral modification demonstrated on It's Me or the Dog. The author concluded that the fact that both methods continue to dominate the training world suggests that people still have ambiguous relationships with their companion animals.

A study of the narrative structure of Dog Whisperer published in a leading critical animal studies journal placed it within a tradition of representing the relationship between humans and nature as one of domination, where non-human animals are presented as commodities that serve the human animal’s wishes.

In a research project designed to assess the safety risks of techniques used by owners of dogs with behavior problems, owners reported hearing about the techniques of giving a "schhhtt" sound correction and "abruptly jabbing the dog in the neck", on television. They were not asked for the names of television sources, but one respondent specified that they were referring to the program Dog Whisperer. Both techniques were concluded to be potentially provocative and therefore capable of triggering defensive aggression.

Sources:

• 1.Walsh, Froma (2009). "Human-Animal Bonds II: The Role of Pets in Family Systems and Family Therapy". Family Process (Family Process Institute) 48 (4): 462–480. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2009.01296.x.

Walsh, Froma Family Process:

• 2.Greenebaum, Jessica B (2010). "Training Dogs and Training Humans: Symbolic Interaction and Dog Training". Anthrozoos (International Society for Anthrozoology (ISAZ)) 23 (2): 129–141. ISSN 0892-7936.

Jessica Greenebaum Anthrozoos

• 3.Jackson-Schebetta, Lisa (2009). "Mythologies and Commodifications of Dominion in The Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan". Journal for Critical Animal Studies (Institute for Critical Animal Studies (ICAS)) 7 (1): 107-130. ISSN 1948-352X.

Jackson-Schebetta, LisaJournal for Critical Animal Studies

• 4.Herron, Meghan E.; Shofer, Frances S. , Reisner, Ilana R. (2009). "Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviours". Applied Animal Behaviour Science (International Society for Applied Ethology (ISAE)) (117): 47–54. ISSN 0168-1591.

Meghan HerronApplied Animal Behaviour Science

I think a more important issue is that they are primary sources. Even if they are from reliable journals we shouldn't use them on that basis alone, as we are not in a position to judge their relative merit. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

A primary source is an interview, a letter or personal communication. A published journal article is a secondary source, it is one step removed from the original information - the dog owners' experiences. Marj (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Involved editor: There seem to be several issues. The content was moved to the talk page until the concerns could be ironed out. Its worth looking more closely at the Primary source issue. Thanks.(olive (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC))

Marj, that's not quite correct. Journal articles that the results of research done by the author of the article are generally considered primary sources--the author is not one step removed from their work. We generally require secondary sources that evaluate a journal article to be able to use them. I would also suggest that studies about pets which do not directly treat the TV in depth would be of very limited value for an article about the show. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

So Nuujinn you are saying that Misplaced Pages editors cannot use journal articles - they must find another article that evaluates the first journal article and only use that second article. Wow! That really turns Misplaced Pages editing on it's head. It's hard enough to find reputable publications in the first place, but having to find other articles that comment on the first. Marj (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn is correct that journal papers such as studies or surveys are primary sources for their findings. Primary sources can be used within narrow limits. Note that many studies begin by reviewing existing literature or previous studies, and that portion of the papers would be secondary sources for those prior papers.   Will Beback  talk  01:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Marj, we use Journal articles all of the time, and that's perfectly fine. The particular articles above seem to be articles about research performed by the authors, and those are primary sources. Will Bebeck is entirely correct that to the extent that such articles include reviews of prior research, they may be also consider secondary sources. Links to the articles themselves would help. You mention that it is difficult to find reliable sources, sometimes when that is the case, it is because the information is not really suitable for the article in question. Dog Whisperer is a TV show, and sources about that should be easy to find. These articles appear to be more about training methods and pets in general, only the Jackson-Schebetta seems that it might be appropriate for use in an article about the show--do any of the other three go into any depth about the show itself? --Nuujinn (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Once something is published it is no longer primary source material. Google a definition. http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/education/008-3010-e.html Marj (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Misplaced Pages uses the terms a bit loosely, but according to the Misplaced Pages definition, things by people too close the subject of an article are considered too close to the subject to be fully reliable sources for the discussion, e.g. personal webpages, or books by the person. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

So Misplaced Pages does not allow the use of research conducted by experts in the discipline, reviewed anonomously by people familiar with the content and the method for accuracy, edited by a journal editor, and published in an authoritative academic journal - saying that the resultant journal article is a "primary source". That is just nonsense. Personal webpages, press releases, self-published books, yes. Peer-reviewed articles??!!Marj (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Not really, this is one area that is pretty sharply defined, see WP:PSTS. Research articles are primary sources. Jackson-Schebetta has some promise as it is analytical, but it is using the show as a jumping off point. Mere publication does not a secondary source make. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

A jumping off point for what, exactly? The whole article is an analysis of the program.Marj (talk) 03:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think they meant a jumping off point for future research into the subject. Either way, the policy on sourcing is pretty clear. One problem with primary sources is that journals will publish research on novel ideas that have not necessarily been replicated yet and thus aren't accepted by the scientific community. Some articles are also published as "risk" articles, that is, articles that come to novel conclusions on previously established science that are interesting enough to publish but again, not replicated. Using primary sources on Misplaced Pages is difficult because interpreting data is beyond what editors are expected to do. Hence, we use secondary sources that can interpret the data, and then we report what they say. Nformation 08:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all the reasons for not using "primary sources". But these are not primary sources, and there are no novel ideas.

• Millan works to establish boundaries and heirarchies in the families on Dog Whisperer.
• Two very different methods of dog training are currently popular, one is shown on Dog Whisperer.
• "Dog Whisperer" fits a tradition of stories where humans have dominion over animals.
• People provoking dogs using techniques shown on "Dog Whisperer" have been bitten.

These would all seem to be in the category "You needed research to tell you that!" Not in the category of 'novel conclusions' not widely supported.Marj (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages rather than google, such research studies/articles are primary sources, unless they are published in reviews or meta analysis, and in this case possibly veterinary textbooks or other more academically driven publications. We can't in an encyclpedia interpret research and use those interpretations as references/sources for claims made in an article. (olive (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC))

Dog Whisperer uses sources such as People Magazine, Paw Nation and People and Pets - and checking the links above these contested articles and the journals they were published in are as "academically driven" as you can get. Not sure what is going on here.Canis5855 (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Just because primary research is "academically driven" doesn't really say anything about the quality of the research. Lisa Jackson-Schebetta's "Mythologies and Commodifications of Dominion in The Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan" was written for the Journal for Critical Animal Studies (Institute for Critical Animal Studies (ICAS)). To answer the original question, then, ask who is the ICAS. Critical animal studies (CAS) was introduced by Steven Best, Anthony J. Nocella, II and Richard V. Kahn in 2006/7, as an attempt to provide an interdisciplinary academic forum for the wider theorization of animal liberation politics through the Center on Animal Liberation Affairs (CALA). Keep digging and the fringe nature of the organization and the "research" becomes clear. People magazine may not be great, but there's a transparency to their editorial board, their credentials and their agenda. These "academic" sources may not even be able to surpass the low threshold of People magazine. 842U (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Mumijo

Needs a year-overdue AfD-mandated merge done, avoiding merging in any of the unsourced or marketing claims. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 09:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Kamal Salibi#The Case of The Sundial of Ahaz

I removed this section per WP:UNDUE and because whoever Lias is, his ideas don't seem to have been reported elsewhere and he himself doesn't seem important enough to have his ideas reported in the article, he is apparently someone that was found just to add a postscript to Salibi's book which promotes a fringe theory that the place names of the Bible refer to places in Arabia. Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Terminalia arjuna

Done a fair bit of work to defringe this. Not thrilled with the sources for the remaining section on Ayurveda - would much rather have actual historians or even primary sources for the history of use than a herbal company, but it MAY be good enough for now. See what you think? 86.178.193.2 (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Can I second the request. 86.178 has done a lot to improve the article and others on Ayurveda. If we can be sure it is right then we have a model for articles on herbs in alternative medicine. A specific question is: without a disclaimer explicitly saying "this doesn't work", could the article be too close to promoting use of this herb? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, don't be too hasty to say doesn't work; I mean, it's claimed to have analgesic properties, but so does willow bark, so it wouldn't be surprising if it had effects. The key is to only show the reasonably well-documented, plausible ones, and not let this grow into the all-too-common "this herb can cure E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G!" that unchecked articles devolve into.

A good guide might be that minor, plausible effects - e.g. this herb is an analgesic, this herb can repel insects when rubbed on the skin, this herb is a stimulant - can probably be left in with a well-done study in a decent journal, but things like "this herb is anti-cancer", "this herb cures diabetes", "this herb cures disease X" would need a HELL of a lot more evidence to be allowed in. I'm also far more inclined to allow documented, widespread historical uses, e.g. "Galen said the herb could treat...", and pretty much forbid modern herbal supplement claims (which are A. less notable and B. far more likely to be made up.)

Some care will, of course, be needed here, but that's the basic principles I think should apply. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Origin of language

There has been a pattern of odd editing at the Origin of language page which seems to have been going on for a number of years. A subsection entitled "synergetic approach" purports to describe the theories of the "Azerbaijan Linguistic School", which apparently claims that visual 'language' preceded spoken language and that language evolved through four stages in which the evolution of spoken language is mirrored by the evolution of writing systems:

• Stage I: Phoneme = sentence (pictographic language);
• Stage II: Phoneme = word or phrase (ideographic language);
• Stage III: Phoneme = syllable (syllabic language);
• Stage IV: Phoneme = sound (phonetic language).

This all seems a mixture of the rather obvious and the incoherent to me, but what do I know? I find nothing reliable about the "Azerbaijan Linguistic School" or this "synergetic" model. The information is cited to broken links. It has recently been deleted. It was then re-added by a new account called User:Wedanta, whose only edit this is. A look through the edit history reveals a number of red-link SPAs adding, re-adding or supplementing this section. Does anyone have any information about this topic? Paul B (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to copy the link from there to here:

• Azerbaijan Linguistic School
• Mammadov J.M., New system of language, thinkings and reality. // “The Papers of independent Authors” (volume 14). Israel. 2010
• Kazimov Q.Sh., Language and History. Baku, 2004
• Kazimov Q.Sh., Mamedov M.B., Azerbaijan Linguistic School
• Gnatyuk R.V., Azerbaijan Linguistic School
• Ludmila Esipova, Syntax in schemes. Novosibirsk, 2006.
• Original of this fragment in Russian. // Wedanta (talk) 12:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting further on the substantive issue at this point, I would like to point out that the first link is to a Wikiversity article, and as such will not be regarded as WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that others are in practice self-published, but we need a Russian speaker to look at this, I think. Paul B (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No results for "Azerbaijan Linguistic School" in English Google Books. No results for Азербайджанская Лингвистическая Школа in Russian Google Books. This looks absolutely fringe. --Folantin (talk) 08:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's approach the issue differently. Let's not create a theory of "Azerbaijan linguistic school," and a group of scientists. Then what to do? Ибадов (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Copy the one piece here that was here (translation of this fragment)

The Azerbaijan Linguistic School works on the belief that speech does not precede language and is not the only instrument for language performance. Language can exist without speech, and nonverbal means can play the role of shell (medium) for language. Humans developed the verbal language form because other channels of communication are not so extensive or comfortable. Here natural selection favours the verbal channel. Despite the dominance of the visual channel in everyday human relations with the outside world, it is insufficiently reliable for individual security. Human vision apprehends at any given moment only a quarter of the visible environment, and is usable for only half of the time (i.e., during wakefulness). The efficiency of the visual channel is also limited by various adverse conditions such as smoke, fog, or any other obstacles.

The auditory canal activity is available for 24 hours in the range of 360 degrees in space. The only barrier for sound propagation is strong noise, which is a very atypical occurrence. Furthermore, in order to communicate with a person visually it is necessary that this person sees the communicator. On the other hand, the auditory canal is open around the clock for perception of information from all sides, from anyone, and without any special settings. All this contributed to the human verbal (oral) form of language development.

It is believed that the mechanism of modern sophisticated and overly-complicated human languages development is identical to the writing evolutionary mechanism. That is writing development experienced stages:

• Stage I: Grapheme = sentence (pictographic writing);
• Stage II: Grapheme = word or phrase (ideographic writing);
• Stage III: Grapheme = syllable (syllabic writing);
• Stage IV: Grapheme = sound (phonetic writing).

The same trajectory language has experienced and it evolved through stages:

• Stage I: Phoneme = sentence (pictographic language);
• Stage II: Phoneme = word or phrase (ideographic language);
• Stage III: Phoneme = syllable (syllabic language);
• Stage IV: Phoneme = sound (phonetic language).

That is, some cry, first substituted (designated) a whole sentence, then — only a part of the sentence, and then — part of the word .

-----------------------

1. Azerbaijan Linguistic School
2. Mammadov J.M., New system of language, thinkings and reality. // “The Papers of independent Authors” (volume 14). Israel. 2010
3. Mammadov J.M., Origin of language. // Journal "Social sciences". Baku, № 1(21), 2005. Page 25 (russian)
4. Kazimov Q.Sh., Language and History. Baku, 2004 //
5. Kazimov Q.Sh., Mamedov M.B., Azerbaijan Linguistic School. Journal "Ucheba". 2007
6. Gnatyuk R.V., Azerbaijan Linguistic School
7. Ludmila Esipova, Syntax in schemes. Novosibirsk, 2006.
8. Original of this fragment in Russian

-- Wedanta (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The "initial cries of Mowgli and Tarzan"???? Are we really expected to include this stuff in an article (answer not required)? Paul B (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Several AFDs related to articles created by sockpuppets

Several sockpuppets of BookWorm44 created a bunch of articles on people and topics which would be considered unorthodox by many (Big Bang denial, Darwin denial, etc...). Now these articles might be perfectly fine, but given the history of these sockpuppets, it's very possible these articles are PR pieces and puffery which gives undue prominence to unotable people and topic. I've nominated the bunch of them to AFD, so we can weight the merits of these articles, identify cleanup issues, as well as establish their notability and NPOV (or lack thereof) and identify cleanup issues. The discussions can be found at

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Asian origin of modern humans
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Christian Schwabe
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/European origin of modern humans
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/George Woodward Warder
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Herotheism
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Initial Bipedalism
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/James Le Fanu
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/James Reid Moir
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rene Noorbergen
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rhawn Joseph
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stuart Pivar

Thanks. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Stuart Pivar

This guy is pretty clearly notable for his involvement in the art world, including a scandal or two which the present version of the article boldly whitewashes. His pseudoscientific endeavors dominate the article at the moment, however. Mangoe (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

VERY much a whitewash. I like how they managed to find the onlyt scientists who supported his work, ignorign the widely reported criticisms. For a few months, tthis guy was being discussed everywhere, particularly by P.Z. Myers, who had withering criticism. 86.182.20.197 (talk) 10:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Mothman

Mothman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An edit-warring IP now with a brand new user account wishing to add material connecting Mothman to 9/11, all sourced to message boards at Mothmanlives.com, Facebook, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No, just trying to correct the idea that the sightings stopped in 1967. You still haven't stated what sources you feel are appropriate but, since you don't like interviews with experts on the radio (I notice you made some drastic edits the same night that Mothman was discussed on Coast to Coast), I do have sources from books, magazine articles, and the like that are totally appropriate for Misplaced Pages. I have offered to send them to you so that you can post them yourself (since you are more familiar with the coding), but if you are not interested in helping I will figure it out myself. As for 9/11 or any other sighting of Mothman, it is not up for you or I to decide whether or not they are real, but to report that the sightings were reported and appear not to be hoaxes, since no one is trying to benefit from them. Western Fortean (talk) 05:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

As I told you on the Talk page, we require sources that meet the encyclopedia's WP:RS and WP:FRINGE policy. Non-fringe, non-sensational publications, like major newspapers, magazines, etc. You've offered to send sources that meet these policies? Post them and we'll gladly review them. Regarding my making edits "the same night that Mothman was discussed on Coast to Coast" I have no idea what you're talking about. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Just to clarify, the idea that the Mothman sightings stopped in 1967 has not been printed in any major newspaper or acknowledged by any expert in the Fortean field. It has only been bandied about on various fringe TV shows, and repeated in these venues for so long that it is now accepted as fact by those unfamiliar with the topic. It is laughed at by anyone knowledgable in the field. Even the fringe skeptics exclusively featured on the page - none of whom are acknowledged experts on the Mothman case - do not make this claim. When you say you would like to me post sources, what exactly are you referring to? Making the edits on the page itself, or posting them elsewhere? Western Fortean (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to get attention for Mothman sightings and the opinion of Mothman 'experts', your best bet is to get a reputable news organization or mainstream scholar to publish them. Misplaced Pages can only report what has already been published in reliable sources, such as The Toronto Star ("The sightings ended abruptly on Dec. 15, 1967, the day of the collapse of the Silver Bridge, which linked Point Pleasant to Ohio. Forty-six people were killed, and since then people have speculated the sightings were connected.") or even USA Today which covers Coleman's claim that "sightings continue" (also reported in our WP article). In a nutshell, I don't think anyone has a problem having the article say, "Conspiracy theorist John Doe believes Mothman is connected to 9/11 and other disasters and says the creature has been sighted far and wide" as long as we have a reliable secondary source (like the news articles mentioned above) reporting it first. Since you are new to WP, it's probably best to post the urls here or at the article's Talk page first before adding any material. If you have sources that meet WP's requirements, I'll be glad to help you add material to the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Chyawanprash

Please watchlist this - people keep trying to add in a study showing it can cure cataracts... when you damage a chick embryo's eyes with steroids then rub diluted Chyawanprash on them before the cataracts start. This is hardly a study that shows anything about real world use. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Am watching it. The notion that it might have an effect on the eyes is historically interesting, as sugar and honey were eye remedies in medieval Arabic medicine. With all those spices in, it should be quite antiseptic, and might well help in conjunctivitis (not medical advice!) Itsmejudith (talk) 11:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Aye, but, at the same time, direct application to artificially damaged eyes in embryos isn't particularly relevant to a product meant to be eaten. It's misleading at best. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure. It sounds delicious spread on toast, and I would definitely try it. But I wouldn't cancel my optician's appointment. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Ama (ayurveda)

Please keep an eye on this one too; there's an unsourced, probably original research rant that's been getting readded. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Will have a look. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Dreadful article, no good sources. I noticed it was prodded and then the prod was removed. I think AfD but have no energy for that today. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't see deleting this outright, as there's a section on it in pretty much every general work on Ayurveda I've come across. Mangoe (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Might be worth nominating it to see if the rescue squad can fix it, though. It's such a tiny topic that it'd need either really good sources, or merging somewhere. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 08:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Mangoe, can you improve it? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

At the moment, I don't have the time. More importantly, I'm unsure what to use as a genuinely reliable source for Ayurveda. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Withania somnifera

Anyone want to take this one on in my place? I grow a little weary of trying to strip the infinitude of health claims that inevitably descends on a supposedly medicinal herb. Can't we make a guideline setting out what counts as the minimal standards for health claims and such? 86.178.193.2 (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Pubmed is the standard for health claims. A difficult article to start on; I have no more stomach for it than you do. Solanaceae, full of alkaloids, cultivated as a crop, no wonder both science and pseudoscience home in on it. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Pubmed is a fairly weak standardd. There's lots of tiny mouse studies on pubmed you could cherrypick. And I, for one, don't think we should allow mere in vitro studies at all, without further evidence. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 08:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my comment wasn't very helpful. We should stick to WP:MEDRS in the sections of these articles that are about medical/alternative medicine use. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Plants may be able to help. I've also looked at Saffron, which is a featured article, but it too might be a bit generous in what it includes about research into possible medical effects. There are a number of other plant FA, but I don't think many of them are traditional medicinal herbs. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that many of our articles on "medicinal herbs" contain ridiculous claims which are rarely referenced to anything more than a single in vitro study on the plant extract. I can't tell you how many times I've removed "treatment for cancer" from these types of articles. WP:MEDRS is definitely the guideline to go by. Deli nk (talk) 08:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

A tangential thought

I think this is potentially a big problem, if we have hundreds (thousands?) of articles on "medicinal" plants and a significant proportion contain medical claims unsupported by any MEDRS. Waiting for them to be reported here and then dealing with them adhoc may not be efficient. I'd happily do a systematic review of all these articles - but where's the best place to start? Category:Medicinal plants is unlikely to be complete; Withania somnifera isn't in it. bobrayner (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Plants Misplaced Pages thinks cure cancer

Per the above, I've begun a quick survey. Here's a list of everything I found in just the first 40 results from a search for "medicinal plant cancer" which actually claims to cure cancer. Not going to fix them, as someone should probably watchlist before removing the claims.

Stated to cure cancer, or very nearly

• Oplopanax
• Artemisia annua
• Sutherlandia frutescens Extra awful
• Medicinal_mushrooms Extra awful
• Deacetylasperulosidic acid
• MC-S
• Bitter_melon
• Uncaria tomentosa
• Hoodia "used as Chinese medicine for 5,000 years to fight cancer, dementia and heart disease"
• Polysaccharide-K
• Euphorbia_lathyris ("used as a folk remedy for")
• Sonchus oleraceus

Strongly implied to cure cancer

• Saussurea laniceps
• Colchicum autumnale
• Ashitaba
• Guava

"May cure cancer"

• Bakuchiol
• Hemp oil
• Cnicus

"Being studied for", without strong implications

• Ammi_majus
• Turmeric

Potential problems, but somewhat balanced (basically, anything that looked too complicated for a quick check)

• Mistletoe
• Fungus (mentions mostly valid drugs derived from mushrooms, could use check)
• Barbigerone
• Colchicine
• Sophoraflavanone G
• Commercialization of indigenous knowledge (concentrates on a genuine cancer cure, which may be misleading)

Other

• Natural_product#Synthesis (claims that whole-plant needed, so drugs aren't as good)

On the upside, a search that finds about 50% almost certainly bad material is pretty specific. On the downside, holy crap: This search gives over 500 results, and if that pattern holds... 86.184.85.227 (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Ironically, the one plant that is most widely reported to be the most promising for a cure for cancer is annona muricata, but the wikipedia article doesn't even mention this...! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Additional articles

These should probably be nuked from orbit

• List_of_plants_used_as_medicine
• Herbalism#Examples_of_plants_used_as_medicine

A clean-up job as big as this is normally done through a WikiProject. Content guidelines, notability guidelines, specific sourcing guidelines can be agreed. WikiProject Plants is active, and perhaps a medicinal herbs task force could be set up in it. There was a WikiProject Alternative medicine, in which many of the members appeared to be practitioners in the field; it's inactive, and I don't see much mileage in reviving it. If I do some bits and pieces, let me get this right in the first place. Eating fruit and veg is good for you, may help prevent you getting cancer, no herb or plant is "effective against cancer", nothing, not even chemotherapy or radiotherapy exactly "cures cancer". Itsmejudith (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It's probably worth pinging Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Alternative medicine, nonetheless. The talkpage may be quiet but, considering the subject, I suspect there are some people who've watchlisted it who might be interested in this kind of cleanup or who might have some helpful suggestions. bobrayner (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Not just cancer

That search is, of course, the tip of the iceberg; there are lots of plants which are claimed to be used for other ailments. Months ago I cleaned up Red raspberry leaf which supposedly had a dozen different benefits for pregnant women and nursing mothers... bobrayner (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course, but this at least gives us some idea of the size of the problem. 86.184.85.227 (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course; agreed. bobrayner (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Would it be worth doing another survey for other diseases, like diabetes, maybe? 86.178.192.40 (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Second Survey: Plants Misplaced Pages thinks cure diabetes

I've checked the first 20 results for "medicinal plant diabetes". Here's the results. Of course, some of these could be valid (but I suspect not).

There is some overlap between this and the previous list.

Apparently cures everything

• Sutherlandia frutescens
• Ichnocarpus frutescens
• Bitter melon

Said outright to cure or treat diabetes

• Otholobium pubescens
• Dental caries -> Links to List_of_medicinal_plants_used_for_dental_caries which should probably be deleted ASAP, MEDRS mess. Though check, in case I'm wrong - antibacterial properties are, at least, plausible.
• National Herbal Park
• Kokoona zeylanica
• Vernonia
• Vaccinium myrtillus
• Ayubia_National_Park#Wildlife

Said to maybe cure or treat diabetes

• Cinnamtannin B1
• Camel milk PURE PROMOTIONAL GARBAGE!
• Euphorbia tithymaloides

Formerly said one of above (cleaned because of previous survey)'

• Oplopanax

Other questionable claims

• Morus nigra

Maybe alright?

• Alpha-glucosidase inhibitor
• Anti-diabetic_medication#Alternative_medicine
• Solanum lycocarpum (weak claims made, with much qualification.)
• Matricaria chamomilla (relatively weak claims, may be alright)

In Solanum lycocarpum the source, in Portuguese, doesn't say anything about it being used for diabetes. It says that the leaves are used as an emollient and against rheumatism, and the fruits are used against asthma, colds and flu. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

In Vaccinium myrtillis, the NIH source says first that bilberry leaf is used to treat diabetes. It goes on to say that there is no evidence that it has any effect in any medical conditions. In fact this official and reliable source is completely stupid and useless. Bilberry is a fruit. It contains all sorts of nice things and is a very good thing to eat. Please everyone eat more of this kind of stuff and less white bread and fried potatoes. NIH warn you not to eat too much in case it is toxic. Doh! That is the case with anything at all. No-one anywhere in the world has ever ever died of eating too many European bilberries. You can pick and eat them all day long. It takes a long time to pick a lot of them. You will end up walking miles. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

List of medicinal plants used for dental caries, apart from the name being the wrong way round. (Sugar cane is the best plant to use if you want dental caries.) It's based on just one article in a low status journal. Sure lots of plants have antibacterial properties, and that should be of interest in dental hygiene. Actually we already put mint in toothpaste. Not sure if any plants target only the bad bacteria and spare all the good ones that we have paid to consume in overpriced yoghurt drinks. Did you want to prod this one too? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion

...Not looking good. 86.178.192.40 (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the problems here can probably be cured through proper attribution... ie to rephrase the material in the articles from blunt statements of fact ("the plant cures diabetes") to an attributed statements of opinion ("according to so and so, the plant cures diabetes".) Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Not really. We should only be including such material if it's decent quality evidence for the claim; A lot of this isn't. 86.182.20.197 (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

We will consider keeping statements in attributed so long as there is some kind of source. A problem is that virtually every plant in the world is somewhere being investigated in a laboratory. Because of biodiversity loss, scientists really need to know quickly what plants contain what substances, and what effects those substances might have. Only the really important discoveries make it through to publication in an international journal. Many authors begin their papers with a rapid run-through of how the plant has traditionally been used. I am extremely sceptical of any "it has traditionally been used to treat diabetes". Late-onset diabetes isn't particularly common in agrarian or hunter-gatherer societies, and I am not convinced that most such societies had/have the same concept of the condition as we do now. It was hardly understood even in the West 50 years ago. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Kolbrin Bible

"The first six books are said to be scribed by Egyptian writers shortly after the exodus called the "Bronzebook". The last five books are collectively called "Coelbook" and is said be authored by Celtic priests written around the time that the New Testament was being created." And other amazing stuff, if anyone wants an article to work on..... Actually, it's an interesting issue, as the only sources I can find using Google Books and GScholar are from people promoting it. Most of the the books I've found and checked so far are published by 'Your Own World Books' which is run by one of the authors, Marshall Masters. Dougweller (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yup - a quick search suggests that it doesn't stand a chance of passing wp:notability (books), so no point in doing anything beyond an AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I have laboriously rewritten this article. Notability is still a bit borderline (there are negative mentions at several debunking sites), and as it stands I walked right on the edge of WP:OR, but see for yourself. BTW Doug I found a thread on sci.tech-archive.net back in 2005 concerning this book with your name all over it. Mangoe (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating work. I never heard of this book until it was mentioned on this board, but figured I'd see if I could use my Google search skills to help. Article currently states that the first provenanced mention is a 2003 book. I just found a thread from November 2002 where some guy quotes it in his sig: http://www.lawnsite.com/showthread.php?t=36598 (Only hits for "Kolbrin" before that are as a mispelling of Helena Kobrin.) Does this help? --Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I would not assume that this signature dates back to 2002; it's common on such fora that the current signature is displayed, whether or not the message was posted before the last signature change. Mangoe (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

As for the etymology of Kolbrin, I just found now that there is also a Welsh runic alphabet called "Coelbren " believed to be a hoax invented c. 1800 by Iolo Morganwg; see cy:Coelbren y Beirdd... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it's very likely that this hoax took its name from Morganwg's hoax. I'm still not sure it merits an article. Self-published books about it, a blog, personal websites, etc. Mangoe, despite all your work, for which I thank you, I really think it should probably go to AfD. Can you convince me otherwise? Dougweller (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, Doug, I think I've written the article that we would liked some skeptic site to have written for us to reference. Unfortunately the only page that appears to have to made much of an effort to do the same didn't archive and is now AWOL. The other weak point, of course, is that woo-woo sites in large numbers refer to this thing, so it's likely that someone will feel the urge to recreate this thing soon enough. Mangoe (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, if it fails another AFD it will be the fifth time this article has been deleted. Mangoe (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Camel milk

This really is one of the worst articles I've seen. 86.178.192.40 (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It's an essay but quite a lot is rescuable in it. I'm sure camel milk is a useful foodstuff, but not necessarily that much better than cow's milk or goat's milk. Article needs to be attacked with a big pair of scissors. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Really? Here's two sections of it.

First of all, lactose is a sugar; the length of proteins is meaningless. Secondly, they seem to be trying to claim that lactose intolerance is a myth, that camel milk's fiiiine despite containing lactose. Thirdly, human milk would cause lactose intolerance in lactose intolerant individuals. You (generally) aren't born lactose intolerant, but the ability to digest lactose goes away as you age.

As for diabetes, I like how they have no idea if it even works, but give exact values for self-treatment use anyway. 86.176.216.50 (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Even I can see that that is nonsense. The scissors will be applied to those sections. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Have a look post-scissors. I thought that the fact that camels are milked in desert areas was useful to keep, the benefits in a subsistence economy can be verified from FAO, then some people think the composition makes the milk particularly healthy (people who possibly haven't considered drinking skimmed cow's milk), that making cheese from it is difficult but some attempts have been made. Probably some more spam needs to come out. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess you're right. Would feel better if it was cited, but... =) 86.182.20.197 (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it could still be improved, but the topic isn't in principle fringe. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Pulse_diagnosis

Major OR and synth: Tries to use modern medicine taking patient's pulse to justify pre-scientific claims. 86.182.191.108 (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

off to AFD. Mangoe (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Astrology

I want to bring this article up with this project. Personally I feel it has a strong apologist tone and may use quote mining to undermine the research that invalidates astrology as well as the frequent use of fringe sources to counter mainstream ones. The individual sign articles are also problematic for a variety of reasons. I've made a small improvement, but more eyes are definitely needed. --Daniel 17:36, 2 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I see some issues with our Article, though not the ones you see. It is heavily biased to "Western Astrology" specifically the roman-grecco form, Chinese astrology and Vedic Astrology are barely mentioned. As much of the "apologist tone" could be tempered by framing it more as "what people belief it is" rather than describing it in Misplaced Pages voice as factual information. Also the "Astrological education" needs to be removed or significantly rewritten as it implies that Astrology itself is taught as a discipline on equal term with Science. The MA program involves cultural context and beliefs of astrology not instruction in it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I've made intermittent attempts to persuade contributors to adhere to a more encyclopaedic tone in the article, but with little real success. I think a major problem with the article is that it doesn't actually deal with the majority of 'astrology' as experienced by most people at all - the mass media 'star sign' horoscopes etc. The 'serious' astrologers generally dismiss these as the tosh they are, and the sceptics likewise treat them with contempt - so our article doesn't really cover what is a major part of 'astrology' in popular culture - and incidentally a major money-earner: thee Daily Mail for instance was grossing around £1 million per year in the 1990s from phone lines plugged by its printed horoscopes. . A balanced article should give a lot more attention to mass-market astrology, and less to the esoteric claims of the professional practitioners. There is also the problem that, as ResidentAnthropologist points out, the article relegates 'Other cultural systems of astrology' to a small section - as if the contemporary western/middle eastern form was somehow more significant. Basically, the article is shaped by the active contributors (the 'believers' and the 'sceptics' - often engaged in endless disputes over 'proof' etc), rather than by the subject matter itself. Sadly, I think that this is inherent in the way that Misplaced Pages treats contentious subjects - excessive attention is given to minutiae, and the broader issues are neglected. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

From a brief inspection, I suggest that some more material could be migrated to History of Astrology, which also needs more eyes on it. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I made some edits which I expected to be reverted, but what I didn't expect is that it was a proponents-only show there. Without some support, I'm not about to be involved while those who know how to manipulate the bureaucratic nature of WP drag everything out for months on end while using the article's history of controversy as a cover. My edits reversed some obvious bias which people had been discussing on the talk page. But the reversion seems to have been the end of the attempt at balanced tone and content. B——C_ritical 23:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little wary of getting overly involved on a subject which a) promises to be highly contentious and b) I don't really care much about. But it does seem that efforts to improve the page are going to run up against fairly entrenched set of advocates, and I would encourage you to continue working on it. I will support efforts to improve the page, although I'm not prepared to take the lead or even a particularly active role given a) and b) above. MastCell  23:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Gemmotherapy

Are there sufficient non-advocacy sources on this for an article to be made, or should this be prodded as too fringe to e reasonably discussed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.20.197 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 26 September 2011

• Website searches are clogged with hits on credulous homeopath sites, but I have found one good book hit. The French Misplaced Pages article also has some critical material. Mangoe (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Bone spectacles

"They were proved to be medical spectacles due to his studies and the human needs for re-correcting eye problems in the 3rd Millennium as well as for the techniques used in their production." Huh? Really? Not sure where to go with this mixture of Forteana and questionable archaeology. There is what looks to be a real "scholarly" reference, but all I can say is that if this is what Iranian scholarship looks like, I would view it all with a jaundiced eye. So to speak. Mangoe (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Google hits for Yanik Tepe (rather than "Tappeh") turn up excavations by Charles Burney near the date given, but no mention of any "spectacles". Somebody with a JSTOR account could access this paper that appears to mention excavations in the area along with the name Ali Akbar Sarfaraz, but not any spectacles. My feeling is a WP:REDFLAG claim (or theory) that glasses were in use in Iran circa 3000 BC that's been recently published in only one obscure Ophthalmology journal does not rise to the level of notability required for inclusion at eyeglasses, let alone merit its own article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I checked JSTOR and can confirm that there are no mentions of spectacles in that article. eldamorie (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Ayurveda#Safety

This keeps getting edited to readd nonsense and special pleading, pclaiming that it's perfectly safe - Ayurveda can detoxify heavy metals (through magic, apparently). It also keeps having the notes about the high contamination with heavy metals removed from the lead, despite WP:LEAD saying all sections should be summarised. Please watchlist. 86.182.20.197 (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Watchlisted. MastCell  21:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Medicinal mushrooms

Hate to keep bringing stuff up, but this has a whole TON of claims based on very flimsy evidence. I don't doubt that some of the claims should stand - phramacological drugs have, indeed, been made based on mushrooms, but there's a lot of stuff that's in vitro or worse, and thus, at best, horribly premature to be on Misplaced Pages. 86.182.20.197 (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

From a quick look, the problem seems to mainly revolve around the use of primary sources - as has been noted on the talk page. So yes, 'premature' - but not necessarily 'fringe' in the strictest sense in all cases. One to watch, but not as extreme as some of the other articles recently brought up here, I'd think. It clearly needs to be watched by those with some knowledge of the general topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

City Harvest Church

The article had been inserted with as many as 5 parapraphs describing the Church accordinly to an academic case study by Joy Tong. There are as many as 12 mentions of "according to Tong", "According to informants to Tong","Tong's study observed".

I feel that while it is OK to make mention of Tong's study, but to have so many paragraphs dedicated to his study is not reasonable in a factual report. Besides, how can you ascertain that Tong's report is not bias and NPOV? Already I had digged out an contradicting view by Tong and an Straits Times article regarding the teaching. (I had included this in the article)

There are concerns of UNDUE weight mentioned in the Talk page, but it seems that it is not truly been answered.

Thanks in advance, J0hn 0316 (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Stuart Pivar

Awful, WP:COATRACK of an article, using a minor connection with Andy Warhol to jusrtify praising pseudoscience instead. I've tried to fix the latter a bit, but I suspect this is borderline WP:ONEEVENT 86.176.222.119 (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

List_of_plants_used_as_medicine

This is being reconstructed, but I found an incident of a negative study being used to say something had been "evaluated for" the treatment, and that sort of thing, and a few cases of using unreliable, promotional web sources to make claims. I think this is done in good faith, but a little watchlisting now will keep it high-quality during the revision. 86.176.222.119 (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added the article to my watchlist and removed a couple of claims substantiated with spam sites or sources that did not meet WP:MEDRS. I have reservations about the extraordinary and nonsensical claim that garlic is "widely used as an antibiotic". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Bachelor_of_Ayurveda,_Medicine_and_Surgery

Ugh. Just, ugh. I particularly like the use of bold text. 86.176.218.96 (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I share your reaction, but the article, in its current state doesn't make any claims of efficacy. The subject clearly exists and is probably notable, although the article's not footnoted properly. If it were nominated for deletion, it would probably be kept. I cleaned up some of the typography. I don't think it needs anything else beyond watchlisting to keep out extravagant claims. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Leary, B, Lorentzon M & Bosanquet, A, 1998, It Wont Do Any Harm: Practice & People At The London Homeopathic Hospital, 1889–1923, in Juette, Risse & Woodward, 1998 Juette, R, G Risse & J Woodward , 1998, Culture, Knowledge And Healing: Historical Perspectives On Homeopathy In Europe And North America, Sheffield Univ. Press, UK, p.253
2. Leary, et al., 1998, 254
3. Sharma, Ursula, 1992, Complementary Medicine Today, Practitioners And Patients, Routledge, UK, p.185
4. "PHOTOTHÈQUE HOMÉOPATHIQUE". Retrieved 2007-07-24.
5. "Homeopathy Commissioning Review: Conclusions & Recommendation – September 2007". West Kent Primary Care Trust. Retrieved 2011-08-27.
6. Walsh, Froma (2009). "Human-Animal Bonds II: The Role of Pets in Family Systems and Family Therapy". Family Process. 48 (4). Family Process Institute: 462–480. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2009.01296.x.
7. Greenebaum, Jessica B (2010). "Training Dogs and Training Humans: Symbolic Interaction and Dog Training". Anthrozoos. 23 (2). International Society for Anthrozoology (ISAZ): 129–141. ISSN 0892-7936.
8. Jackson-Schebetta, Lisa (2009). "Mythologies and Commodifications of Dominion in The Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan". Journal for Critical Animal Studies. 7 (1). Institute for Critical Animal Studies (ICAS): 107–130. ISSN 1948-352X.
9. Herron, Meghan E. (2009). "Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviours". Applied Animal Behaviour Science (117). International Society for Applied Ethology (ISAE): 47–54. ISSN 0168-1591. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution