User talk:Orangemarlin

* Click here to leave me a new message

I like to keep both sides of my discussions together, so if you leave me a message here, I will reply here. If I left a question ,on your talk page, please reply there; I'm watching your page so I will get back to you as soon as possible. Thanks!

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Worm That Turned	259	4	7	98	Open	09:47, 18 November 2024	1 day, 20 hours	no	report

FACs needing feedback view •
La Isla Bonita	Review it now

Featured article removal candidates
Letters Written in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark	Review now
Rudolf Vrba	Review now
Michael Tritter	Review now
Middle Ages	Review now
Emmy Noether	Review now
The Notorious B.I.G.	Review now
Isaac Brock	Review now
Mariah Carey	Review now
Pokémon Channel	Review now
Concerto delle donne	Review now
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask	Review now

Watching Anti-Science POV admin candidates

• None for 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 ^barley 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 19:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Arguably, Reflexology, though that's probably not actually dangerous, just ridiculously oversold. Adam Cuerden ^talk 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; [1]. 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 ^barley 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)

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:

• AIDS
• Alzheimer's Disease
• Rotavirus

From Graham

Hi OM, I know you know Rotavirus is a FAC and belated thanks for your timely edits. "You know who" is fortunately silent at the moment, (but fingers are still crossed). I've been feeling guilty for months over Herpes zoster— I think I caused many problems by incorporating too many primary sources. I've just looked at the article and, having just passed Herpes simplex and Genetics to GA today, (or yesterday, it's getting late in the UK), I can't see why Zoster is not GA. If you are amenable (? spelling), I would be grateful if you would let me collaborate (? spelling again), with you once more. Graham. --GrahamColm^Talk 23:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Anything you can do to promote Herpes zoster back to GA? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, I don't own the article, and I never had an issue with your edits. I think "you know who" created a maelstrom that caused it to collapse. It needs to get back to GA, because frankly, it should be GA even now. I've played with a few edits here and there to improve it. BTW, if you want to amuse yourself, look at "you know who's" edits to Talk:Alzheimer's disease. Luckily, several people jumped in. But let's HZ one more time, and maybe we can get it promoted to FA. And I'll start looking at other medical articles in the FAC process. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, I haven't forgotten your request to look at Alzheimer's disease. Every time I look at my talk page it gives me a guilty feeling. Trying to balance the little time I have at the moment between reviewing and writing my own stuff. I see you have some stability problems, which puts me off doing a detailed review of the prose just yet. I may have some time tomorrow evening, so is there anything you particularly want another opinion on? BTW: I remember you enlightened me a while back about Osteopathic medicine in the United States. This is now at FAC and, although I think the text isn't ready for FA, I wonder if you could comment on the handling of the subject -- something I'm too ignorant to comment on. Colin°^Talk 20:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that AD is getting close to FAC. When you have a chance, can you jump in? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking me or Graham? Alzheimer's hasn't changed much since I reviewed just the Epidemiology section (which hasn't changed at all). The sort of checks I did need to be done by the editors who have access to all the sources and can rewrite weak text or re-source weakly sourced text. I don't have the time, knowledge, ability or access to the material needed to write Alzheimer's. I'm just about to head off on holiday -- back on the 25th. Let me know which section(s) you think are FAC-worthy and I'll look at them then. Colin°^Talk 18:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Doug Gottlieb

So you stick up for credit card stealing frauds. Why?

I try to revise Gottlieb's Wikipedia entry and you were trying to stick up for him.

Everything I wrote was absolute truth.

Congratulations on your high standing in life where you defend absoulute frauds.

You truly are an asset to the human race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.78.93 (talk) 06:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Alzheimer

I simply wanted to thank all those as you that closely review my editions and copy-edit them. I can search for information and summarize it, but I'm spanish, so my english its far from perfect. I also wanted to say that the alzheimer article is greatly improving and its partly thanks to you. I would have never believed a few months ago that there would be a team of several editors improving the article regularily... Well, as I said I simply wanted to acknowledge all your efforts improving science articles in WP. --Garrondo (talk) 09:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to drop you a note. I didn't realize you were a native spanish speaker until I visited your user page. I appreciate your edits. But if you could do us a favor, do a few with your great ideas, and let someone copyedit the language a bit before adding more. It gives everyone time to deal with the vandals and tightening up your language!!! Please note that I really appreciate your efforts. The article is really improved over the past few weeks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Attachment therapy

Interesting. I was expecting to be criticised in the other direction! (I can't find anything positive about this therapy at all other than the claims of protagonists which don't count). The lead says its non mainstream, criticised by the mainstream, has a non-accepted theoretical base, is a pseudoscience, is antithetical to attachment theory and is responsible for the deaths of at least 6 children. If that is supportive of attachment therapy as you state, how do you think it ought to be worded?Fainites ^barley 17:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I read it wrong. You know I think anything pseudoscientific ought to be stated as such in the lead. I just thought the lead was, well, weak in criticism. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tried several different versions of the lead. One criticism before was that I needed to describe what it actually was before plunging into the criticisms - hence the second paragraph of the lead. (Personally I find even the bald description of provoking rage by lying on top of children and confronting them pretty horrific anyway). The mainstream views and criticisms are in the third paragraph of the lead. I could swap the paragraphs around, but I was trying to imagine being a reader who'd never even heard of it. Have another look and let me know what you think. (I added a little for clarity). Fainites ^barley 17:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It's taken a war to get settled, but the lead of Homeopathy could be a standard for pseudoscience articles. State what it is and history. State why it's a bunch of bovine feces (with tons of verified and reliable references), and then state why the pseudoscience is thought to work by it's promoters. Kind of works.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look at homeopathy. However, i'd like you take a little more time to read it OM. I'm not sure you got past the second paragraph before tagging it. This is the second time you've tagged it in this way I think. You will see if you read it that it is both thoroughly sourced and almost entirely critical. There isn't a single criticism in there that doesn't come from a good, notable source. I didn't even use the word pseudoscience (even though its obviously pseudoscience) until i found a notable source that said it. (There isn't the sheer quantity of sources as are likely to be found in homeopathy as this is an obscure bit of psychology rather than medicine as such). I haven't found any notable sources in favour of this therapy in any of its forms. The only favourable thing to be said, which is also well sourced, is that after all the criticism in the last few years, some leaders in the field are acknowledging past faults and leading a change of ways, theories, practices etc etc - a point worthy of note surely. Fainites ^barley 17:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way it took a war to wrest this article from an attachment therapy sock army aswell. Fainites ^barley 17:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that I know yo were involved, I'll de-tag it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've rearranged the lead a bit - what do you think? Another editor and I struggled with this 'mainstream' business. Its often more difficult and takes alot longer to scientifically test things in psychotherapy areas but there are definitely things you can say are mainstream - like attachment theory (on which there's masses of research), and non mainstream -like attachment therapy. However - hardly any of the 'mainstream' therapies count as validated yet because they only invented them in recent years and they are undergoing the process now. Fainites ^barley 18:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Allopath

I took a brief look through the AMA website via Google, and I found about 2 distinct scenarios when the term was used:

1. In articles that try to boost alternative medicine (no offense intended vs alt med with that statement; these are literally opinion pieces, not research)
2. In articles discussing enrollment at MD schools vs DO schools

There was even a letter (published in Ann Int Med) When did I become an allopath written in response to one of the former. Antelan ^talk 06:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you point me to that letter? I have access to most journals online. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Alzheimer's

Just in case you don't spot it (it is no longer the last item on the talk page), I've added a review of just part of AD. Taking this to FA is going to need a serious commitment of time--doing the sort of text-source checking I've done + actually writing material.

Whichever medical article you decide to concentrate your efforts on, if you are heading towards FAC, let me know and I'll be happy to have a look (eventually :-). Colin°^Talk 07:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Alzheimer's disease belongs in the FA group of articles. It's a little weak right now, but several editors have gotten involved with it over the past few months and really began a process of clean-up. I've focused on it in the past, but if there are a number of editors ready and willing to join in, it's time to start. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 13:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm offering to help in the way I helped Graham on Rotavirus--that is, someone else did the research and wrote the content. My research/content time is committed elsewhere. How about creating a TODO list on the talk page, and ask the editors to take a section each to scrutinize and fix (or, at least, point out what needs fixing). Colin°^Talk 13:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Allopathic

Hi. Thank you for your input on Osteopathic medicine in the United States. You are not the first person to raise the issue if the usage of allopathic in this article. However, I disagree with your analysis that the term "allopathic" is pejorative. It is used in the United States, by MD and DO physicians alike, to refer to one of the two major pathways to becoming a licensed physician in the U.S. There a fairly decent list of sources of this usage over on Wikitionary Talk:Allopathic. Not only does the AMA use the term, the American Association of Medical Colleges and the National Residency Matching Program use it, and it appears in major, peer-reviewed medical journals, like the New England J of Med. Bryan Hopping ^T 13:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I am a licensed physician, graduate from a top Medical School in the United States. And frankly, until I read this article I have never once heard any physician refer to himself or others as "allopathic." In fact, my first read of the article was that "oh here goes the CAM nutjobs, using one of their secret terms to make medicine appear to be something else." OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point of view. I agree it is pretty unusual (unheard of) for an individual physician to identify himself as "allopathic." It would be sort of silly. However, it not uncommon when discussing the US medical education & training system as a whole to divide schools and training programs into "allopathic schools" and "osteopathic students" or "allopathic graduates" and "osteopathic graduates."

As in these articles:

• Record number vied for 2007-08 medical school slots. American Medical News.
• Allopathic med school enrollment rises 2.2%. American Medical News.
• Wilson, Jennifer Fisher. Osteopathic medicine's growing pains. American College of Physicians Observer. November 1997.

It also frequently appears in more scholarly articles discussing government policy on medical education and physician workforce issues:

• Salsberg, Edward and Grover, Atul. Physician Workforce Shortages: Implications and Issues for Academic Health Centers and Policymakers. Academic Medicine, Vol. 81, No. 9 / September 2006. PMID 16936479
• Medical Student Performance Evaluations in 2005. Acad Med. 2008 Mar;83(3):284-291. PMID 18316879
• Medical School Programs to Increase the Rural Physician Supply. Acad Med. 2008 Mar;83(3):235-243. PMID 18316867
• Gregg A. Warshaw, MD; Elizabeth J. Bragg, PhD, RN; Ruth W. Shaull, MSN, RN; Christopher J. Lindsell, PhD Academic Geriatric Programs in US Allopathic and Osteopathic Medical Schools. JAMA. 2002;288:2313-2319. PMID 12425709
• Sarah E. Brotherton; Paul H. Rockey; Sylvia I. Etzel. US Graduate Medical Education, 2004-2005: Trends in Primary Care Specialties. PMID 16145028

The U.S. department of labor uses the term in the second paragraph of its description of Physicians and Surgeons. It reads "There are two types of physicians: M.D.—Doctor of Medicine—and D.O.—Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. M.D.s also are known as allopathic physicians."

I don't agree that this article has the appearance of some "CAM nutjob". I definitely don't want it to be that, and I've worked hard to avoid it. I also don't want the article to simply repeat the self-promoting propaganda of the American Osteopathic Association as fact. I have really tried to include as many reliable, notable sources as possible in this article. One of the best I feel is the piece by JD Howell, MD published in New Engl J Med.

• JD Howell, MD PhD. The Paradox of Osteopathy. N Engl J Med. 1999 Nov 4;341(19):1465-8. PMID 10547412

I highly recommend reading this article in its entirety. It really presents the topic neutrally, in a way that is difficult to get from osteopathic publications. Incidentally, he uses both the terms "allopathic" and "allopathy."

I know this terms can feel awkward and arcane, but they are the terms that are used within certain discussions, by the experts and major publications . We can't ignore that.

I hope you understand, I am trying to make the article Osteopathic medicine in the United States the best that it can be. That means finding and citing great sources. Every source that I have found that discusses osteopathic medicine, published in the last 50 years, uses the term "allopathic," including articles published in highly prestigious medical journals like NEJM and JAMA. Bryan Hopping ^T 16:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. I know the article wasn't written from the POV of a CAM nutjob, I said that when I see that word, that's the first thing that comes to my mind. From my POV, Osteopaths are physicians who had a different type of medical training, one that I both respect and believe has value to the medical community. In fact, my person physician happens to be a DO. Moreover, I understand that people use the terminology in published articles from respected journals. Until I read the article, I thought that "allopathic" was pejorative. I don't like the term, especially when combined in any way with "evidence based medicine." There is no medicine except "evidence based." If it is isn't evidence based, it isn't medicine. Again, my concerns with the article go well beyond "allopathy", and now I'm more or less on board with its use. It may take about a year for me to get arms around the term. Give me time :) Otherwise, I hope it's clear to you, I do not think nor believe nor assume that Osteopathic medicine is an "alternative medicine." It's just medicine (save for the OMM stuff). So you've convinced me of it's use. I'm going to have to drink now.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I'm happy to read this. And I hope this means you won't be revoking your membership with the AMA.  :) I couldn't agree more that the only kind of medicine is evidence-based medicine. Personally, I don't even see that osteopathic physicians receive any different training. That's my experience anyway as a DO student, my entire 3rd year of medical school I've spent with MD students at an MD hospital with absolutely no mention of OMM. I don't see anything allopathic or osteopathic about the medicine being practiced. Rather, I've come to understand these terms to describe two traditions within medicine, two "clubs" within the profession. I would like to see the article reflect this reality, and emphasize that there is no such thing as "allopathic" or "osteopathic" medicine, rather there are associations and institutions that are referred to as allopathic (the AMA, the ACGME, AAMC) and there are parallel osteopathic counterparts (the AOA, the AACOM, etc.)

Unfortunately, your initial response to the word is now part of the historical record for the FAC, perhaps bolstering others who might object reflexively to the use of the term in the context of this article. With your permission, I'd like to move the contents of this discussion to the Talk:Osteopathic medicine in the United States page. Thanks again. Pleasure working with you. Bryan Hopping ^T 21:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worht, Hopping has pressed very hard for inclusion of the word allopathic across this encyclopedia. Even when I've made various suggestions for substitutions ("MD" being one example), he's been opposed. This term still carries a foul air, despite the fact that it is not exclusively pejorative. Antelan ^talk 08:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

These statements about my conduct & my position are simply not true, as well as being a violation of WP:NPA, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." My position has always been that this term belongs in a very limited number of articles, namely only those articles where major sources use the term in their analysis, i.e. articles where a distinction between allopathic and osteopathic physician education in the United States only is called for. Bryan Hopping ^T 11:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It is surprising that some editors are complaining that Bryan Hopping is working "very hard for inclusion of the word 'allopathic' across this encyclopedia, especially when he is doing so with verification from notable and reliable sources. It would seem more appropriate to thank him (I do). The additional benefit of knowing about the word, allopathic, is its historical context. It is important to understand that allopathic physicians have asserted that their treatments are the most "scientific" and most "proven" since the mid-1800s. Further, they have worked to limit their competitors. Times have changes but some things haven't. DanaUllman^Talk 13:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well if one of the world's top homeopathy promoters thinks allopathy should be used, then I become worried. There are historical words that were commonly used in 1850 that have either a different or even pejorative meaning in 2008. And with regards to "competitors", Osteopaths are physicians. Homeopaths are quacks, which is only competitive in that it keeps people from from getting appropriate medical treatment. Please Dana, don't compare homeopathy to osteopathy, it's offensive. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hopping, I encourage you to demonstrate one place where my statement about your actions was false or misleading. Antelan ^talk 01:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Antelan, thanks for the invitation. I'd rather focus my efforts on meaningful progress on articles. Defending myself against your brand of personal attack is a waste of time.Bryan Hopping ^T 04:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, this is my talk page, and all of you are in an argument that only peripherally includes me. Please take it elsewhere. Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm real

Hey hi, OR. I'm glad that I finally became a real person to you [2]. Please know that I am NOT anti-science. Actually, I am very pro-science (though I also appreciate the limitations double-blind methodology...heck, surgeons also appreciate some limitations here). Please also know that I do not mean to be annoying. I am just working to put some good reliable and notable information on wikipedia. It is frustrating for me that so few homeopaths know about the research in their own field and that other people have even less knowledge of or apprecation for this research. Please know that life is rarely as black and white as it may seem. Finally, I am one of the few wiki editors who prefers to be transparent, and I appreciate others who come out of the closet to be real...and I like converting other editors to do likewise. DanaUllman^Talk 05:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

AIDS

See here; you might want to initiate and shephard the WP:FAR. I just don't have time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic

You're at 3RR, yourself. I submitted a WP:AN3 report, but I can't block as a participant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

reverting referenced text from chiro (again)

Why are you deleted referenced text from world health organization on chiropractic article?

You are abusing twinkle saying that deleted text was vandalism. It was fully referenced text from world health organization about chiro education, history

(the above was deleted for no apparent reason but to hide the truth. New comment is below)

Please do not delete agreed upon material in chiropractic talk that is fully referenced from world health organization, a newtral source. the edits in question are factual, verifiable, notable and reliable. You are also abusing wikipedial tools (twinkle) by saying that the text is vandalism when it is clearly not. I am reporting you to administrators now as you are also deleting my concerns on your talk page and dodging my concerns./

I do not know how to contact admins, tell me how so we can see who is right in this dispute. You misused wikipedia tools citing vandalism when that clearly was not the case. The material was verifiable, notable, factual, reliable and more then meets inclusion criteria. Please do not deleted this material which was also agreed on chiropractic talk by quack guru and myself. 64.25.184.27 (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)