If you are here to discuss something about an article's content then please, to maximize consensus, comment on that article's Talk page and not here.

Hi. My edit was specifically meant to remove the absolute, so I don't really agree with your edit making the text "simpler". Proving an absolute is quite hard. You'd have to read the entire sources and show that none of what they examined was worthy of the adjective "scientific". And then you'd have to show that they examined everything out there. You can have good scientific studies, good evidence for particular things, without making up an entire separate "graphology" science. An example of this is that male and female handwriting are graphically discernible by AI analysis, for example (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269992400_Automatic_analysis_of_handwriting_for_gender_classification) Anyway, I appreciate your cooperation and I was hoping you would agree with my explanation here before entering into any sort of edit war :-) Peace. Callmepgr (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't disagree, just provided (what I thought was) more concise, direct, non-absolute wording. In any case, please make any further comment at Talk:Graphology so the article's other editors can see/participate. Bon courage (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did as you suggested on the article's talk page. Thank you. Happy new year!

Callmepgr (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you disagree with another user's edit, the correct approach is to explain why you disagree and attempt to reach a consensus on the subject. Reverting the edit without providing any reasoning for doing so is a violation of WP:WAR. I have started a discussion on the talk page here, please voice your objections there rather than continuing to vandalize the main page. KingSupernova (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh you mean your edit! In fact, an approach editors often use is WP:BRD. Bon courage (talk) 07:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure what you hope to acomplish by misrepresenting Wikipedia policies; the rest of us can read. From WP:BRD: "When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed." KingSupernova (talk) 08:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As my edit summary said "is sourced". That's my reason to to keep it. Bon courage (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My edit explained why the source was unreliable. Given that context, stating that a source exists is an irrelevant fact, like if you had stated that the Earth is round. We both agree on that fact and it has no bearing on the subject at hand. You'd need to explain why you believed the source to be reliable. KingSupernova (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You were wrong though. There's only so much one can put in an edit summary. Where even to start with the misconceptions enshrined in your edit? Bon courage (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not saying that the medicine works. I personally don't think it does. However, I can't find evidence that says it doesn't work. Could you at least be a little bit kind and maybe show that source and say "Hey, you missed it, here it is."? I see plenty of sources that say it's false advertising, that makes sense. Do you understand what I'm saying or any of the nuance I'm mentioning here? Also, a talk page or something would've been a little more appropriate from either of us. Fephisto (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, cancer/autism 'cures' from supplements are false claims. If you want to argue the case for softening this into some kind of equivocal framing, please make that case on the article's Talk page. Bon courage (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Bon courage,

Happy New Year. How to I get talking to someone about this Wikipedia page? My original point of contact was a moderator called Lou Sander who I personally messaged a couple of days ago and have not had a reply. Given modern technology I am up for a Zoom or Google Meets discussion with moderators. Last time I interacted with Wikipedia after a long discussion I was put in contact with an ER doctor in Canada and we had some fruitful discussions. If I could be put in contact with him again or someone of a similar medical research background (ie someone who has been published in peer reviewed scientific journals as regards medical sciences) that would be great. Otherwise if there are higher powers within Wikipedia who I could talk to via Google Meets or Zoom that would also be great.

Warmest regards Peaceful07 (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thet would be Doc James, who has little to do with Wikipedia editing these days. The best way to get a discussion going is to start one on the article's Talk page. That article (and content in general) does not have 'moderators', and decisions are made through editorial WP:CONSENSUS. Also, be aware of WP:MEDCOI. Bon courage (talk) 08:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Bon Courage,

Thank you for the reply. How could I find Doc James on Wikipedia? It would be good to get in contact with him again as he was very friendly and interesting to talk to. Peaceful07 (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You could leave a message at User Talk:Doc James (or email him from there). Please note that Behavioral optometry no longer exists as a standalone article on the English Wikipedia; its content got merged to Vision therapy and discussion about BO content would be best started at Talk:Vision therapy., Bon courage (talk) 09:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm RudolfoMD. I noticed that you recently removed content from Burzynski Clinic without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page You removed: ((tl|unreliable source|sure=yes|quote=of sixty-one registered trials, he has completed only one and has not published the results of any of them|reason=https://clinicaltrials.gov/search?term=Burzynski&aggFilters=results:with&limit=50 shows 29 studies with results, all in Houston...|Forbes "contributor" articles are not reliable sources.))((tl|fv|reason=https://clinicaltrials.gov/search?term=Burzynski&aggFilters=results:with&limit=50 shows 29 studies with results, all in Houston and 39 without, all but 6 in Houston)) However, [[clinicaltrials.gov]] shows 29 studies with results.^[1]

You are in error.

WP:PROFRINGE/OR/unreliable sourcing is a demonstraby false claim. Please reconsider/adequately explain.

You have re-introduced what is now (I presume due to the passage of time) clear falsehood into the article, "Burzynski has not published results for any of these" which I had removed. If you did so in error, I urge you to self-revert. If you did not, do explain how it is not untrue. https://clinicaltrials.gov/search?term=Burzynski&aggFilters=results:with&limit=50 is not OR or unreliable sourcing. Do you insist it is? Would citing each of the 29 instead be acceptable?

AS for profRinge: I have no opinion on Burzynski's treatments. I was taking initial steps toward forming one when I stumbled upon outright falsehood in the article. Which I removed and you have restored. RudolfoMD (talk) 09:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And what part of Forbes "contributor" articles are not reliable sources do you not understand or dispute?

Did you even read what you reverted and warned me over? RudolfoMD (talk) 09:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You also reintroduced two other outright falsehoods, e.g., "Independent scientists have been unable to reproduce the positive results reported in Burzynski's studies". What on earth are you doing? What part of

However, at least one such study, an RCT by seven Japanese researchers showed neoplastons, according to an article in PLOS One, produced positive results. Specifically, significant efficacy for the primary endpoint, cancer-specific survival, was shown. ^[2]

do you not understand? RudolfoMD (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It needed updating is all. Linking to a search result at clinicaltrials.gov to make an analytic point certainly is OR, and doing it in 2024 data to try and prove something in 2013 was an 'outright falsehood' is also rather silly. As for 'Did you even read what you reverted?' well, you've rather owned yourself there, as it seems you didn't take in the net effect[1] of my whole edit. Do not use unreliable medical sources like PMID:25790229 for content on Wikipedia, especially in the service of a disgusting health fraud. The relevant sourcing standard for biomedical content is WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Misrepresenting what I tried to prove is silly. It certainly isn't going to convince me I did something silly. What's the point? I was clear. You have re-introduced what is now (I presume due to the passage of time) clear falsehood into the article.

Your subsequent edit ~1 hour after you reverted doesn't excuse that you reintroduced three outright falsehoods, just because it fixed one. I responded to what was visible at the time. Own your screw-up.

And it's silly to lecture me about MEDRS while defending freaking Forbes blog tripe.

I noticed you dodged the question.

• What part of Forbes "contributor" articles are not reliable sources do you not understand or dispute?

I don't know if it's a disgusting health fraud. There are a lot of scams out there, and it could well be one. There are a lot of scammers in medicine. The best have convinced most folks they're not scammers. I bet you've read none of the results of the 29 studies, so you don't know what it is either, but rather are trusting what others have written about it.

"Independent scientists have been unable to reproduce the positive results reported in Burzynski's studies" is (I presume due to the passage of time) not accurate. Policy doesn't allow lies in articles. [pmid:25790229 PMID:25790229] proves positive results were reproduced. DO NOT put lies back into wikipedia. RudolfoMD (talk) 10:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Content on Wikipedia needs to be WP:VERIFIED, not conform to your external concept of Truth™. Sometimes content is outdated, and can be updated. It is well verified that this clinic's claims have not been confirmed by independent sources. You have been warned about making problem edits in this topic space. Please take that warning seriously. Bon courage (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sometimes content is outdated, and can be updated.
— User:Bon courage 10:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I updated. You didn't keep any of the updates I made. You threw it ALL out. What did I put in the article that didn't improve the article with respect to NPOV? I'm not edit warring with you. So why are you threatening me a second time?

Do you think "There is no convincing evidence" is clear wording? I don't. RudolfoMD (talk) 10:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"NCI observed that researchers other than Burzynski and his associates have not been successful in duplicating his results" is outdated. You rejected my update. What update is acceptable to you? RudolfoMD (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you think "There is no convincing evidence" is clear wording? ← yes, that's good style for Wikipedia

Any edits that were in line with the applicable WP:PAGS would surely garner consensus. If you have any, perhaps propose them at the article's Tall page. Bon courage (talk) 11:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Acrylamide. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acrylamide&diff=prev&oldid=1196348004 RudolfoMD (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've protected the article for three days. I've noticed there's no recent discussion on the talk page, however there should be. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your vote here was very perceptive about the judgement and style of the candidate; it's too bad it didn't carry more weight in that discussion. --JBL (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With all due respect: Your revert reinstates a particular opinion that stands against all others from various institutes. And the general opinion is "potential carcinogenic", period. Whom are you trying to please here? --Kku (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Gods of Knowledge. Bon courage (talk) 12:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kindly try to please the Gods of Literacy as well and take some time to read through the paragraph dealing with toxicity. You will find startling arguments in there. If that doesn't help, I am afraid, I will have to doubt your impartiality. -- Kku (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Get with the modern evidence. There was an acrylamide scare, CRUK as of 2021 says the idea it causes cancer is a myth with no evidence. Yes, it might turn well out that it is technically carcinogenic ... but in food at the amounts humans eat? You might as well say ripe bananas are carcinogenic. No, the evidence on human exposure to acrylamide is to the contrary, as the article already describes. Bon courage (talk) 12:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Controlled animal studies beat epidemiological dietary evidence. Diet surveys cannot lead to high qulity evidence.

ACS says: Based on current research, some of these organizations have made the following determinations:

• The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies acrylamide as a “probable human carcinogen.”
• The US National Toxicology Program (NTP) has classified acrylamide as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.”  
• The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies acrylamide as “likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”

It's in the bloody source for the text you two are fighting over!

CRUK seems to be way way over its skis. RudolfoMD (talk) 05:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, you need to read what I wrote. And stop WP:FOLLOWING me and reverting edits, In particular adding to the article lede that acrylamide has "so far" only been classified as a probable carcigonen is pure WP:CRYSTAL POV and contrary to the sourcing. Things can be technically carcinogenic (or probbly so) yet pose no risk in reality at the doses in play. See also, mobile phones and glyphosate. Bon courage (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Holy moly. Your writing that in response to the comment above it with sources proving it wrong before I've even responded is... EPIC. Controlled animal studies can show something to be carcinogenic even if epidemiological dietary evidence can't. Editing accordingly is the opposite of CRYSTAL.
FOLLOW NPOV. By all means, the article should and (IIRC) does mention that CRUK as of 2021 says the idea it causes cancer is a myth with no evidence, but don't' put it in wikipedia's voice. Why?
The problem is what you wrote is a medical claim that does not represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources, not that I didn't read it. The sources are overwhelmingly on my side; I noted three of them in my previous comment. "You need to" back the hell off and not order people around.
I'm not following you. As you should know. I came here to follow up on (link to) your removing content from Burzynski Clinic without adequately explaining why, and then refusing to engage when I said: "researchers other than Burzynski and his associates have not been successful in duplicating his results" is outdated. You rejected my update. What update is acceptable to you? Then while on the page, I saw THIS discussion about and your hostility to Kku and looked into the issue about acrylamide.
Consider yourself warned about making frivolous or meritless complaints about another editor following you around. And your argument is so weak. Look at the LD50 of the carcinogen. They're right there in the acrylamide infobox. ~100mg. That not a lot. A 50 packets of chips can have that much. And I'm sure plenty of people have had several packets of chips in a day and that many in a month. And it does seem to do harm according to doctors and blood tests. RudolfoMD (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Controlled animal studies can show something to be carcinogenic even if epidemiological dietary evidence can't ← that's your personal random POV and wrong in respect of acrylamide as humans and rodents absorb and process it differently. Simply put, for humans there no consistent evidence that dietary acrylamide exposure is associated with the risk of any type of cancer. No reliable source says otherwise. Bon courage (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page watcher) Speaking as someone with decades of real-life experience in animal studies, what animal studies can show in this case is that acrylamide can be carcinogenic in the animal species tested, under the conditions and at the dosages that were tested. They do not necessarily show carcinogenicity in humans at levels that normally occur in human exposure. We have to follow WP:MEDRS, so we need review articles about what happens in humans, at human levels of exposure, if we are going to make statements about carcinogenicity in humans. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"In vitro studies and animal models serve a central role in research, and are invaluable in determining mechanistic pathways and generating hypotheses. However, in vitro and animal-model findings do not translate consistently into clinical effects in human beings. Where in vitro and animal-model data are cited on Wikipedia, it should be clear to the reader that the data are pre-clinical, and the article text should avoid stating or implying that reported findings hold true in humans. The level of support for a hypothesis should be evident to a reader."

Your claim about what we need doesn't follow from that.

Animal studies show a much more serious problem than you claim. This is sobering:
|LD₅₀ (median dose)
100-200 mg/kg (mammal, oral)
107 mg/kg (mouse, oral)
150 mg/kg (rabbit, oral)
150 mg/kg (guinea pig, oral)
124 mg/kg (rat, oral)^[5]. These are for acute toxicity, not carcinogenicity. "It has been shown that acrylamide is moderate to high in acute oral toxicity."-McCollister. Carcinogenicity can of course be expected at lower doses.

Relevant to point out WRT this data: Rabbits aren't rodents. And humans are mammals.

Safety decisions are routinely made based on animal study data, and as someone with decades of real-life experience in animal studies, surely you know that.

Does MEDRS say controlled animal studies beat epidemiological dietary evidence, or the reverse, or something in-between? I don't think it says explicitly. I do think most experts would say controlled animal studies beat epidemiological human dietary evidence. Can you refute my claim that Diet surveys do not lead to high quality evidence with reliable sources?

Did I misquote the ACS? Why should we ignore that evidence?

ScottishFinnishRadish: This is screwy article content:
Despite health scares following its discovery in 2002, and its possible classification as a carcinogen, acrylamide from diet is thought unlikely to cause cancer in humans. Why?

1) It's a known (animal) carcinogen. Not "possible". APpropriate would be, "its classification as a known animal carcinogen and possible human one,..."
2)"acrylamide from diet is thought unlikely to cause cancer in humans" is a minority opinion, and should be described as such.

I notice you're not disputing what I said about 50 packets of chips . RudolfoMD (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You cherry picked the ACS to omit:

• It’s important to note that these determinations are based mainly on studies in lab animals, and not on studies of people’s exposure to acrylamide from foods.
• reviews of studies done in groups of people (epidemiologic studies) suggest that dietary acrylamide isn’t likely to be related to risk for most common types of cancer.

and yes you are engaging in OR about crisps in a way which would further the myth that our MEDRS source is cautioning about. To repeat: there no consistent evidence that dietary acrylamide exposure is associated with the risk of any type of cancer.[2] Also note the ACS has a more recent communication on acrylamide.[3] Bon courage (talk) 07:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meticulous and differentiated weighing of the scientific evidence is of course instrumental in producing a non-biased article. No doubts. By putting the most uncontroversial and singular finding at the top, however, you are blatantly downplaying the risk of acrylamide consumption for the naive reader, especially for those that struggle to read through the more involved parts further down. All in all this is dangerous oversimplification and misleading. Your offhanded remarks about "gods of knowledge", mobile phones and glyphosate further go to show that you do not appear to strive for an unbiased introduction to the topic. As I see it: if you are completely happy following your own agenda and believing in your own infallability, you should do so within the scope of personal projects, but not in WP. -- Kku (talk) 09:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Facepalm I strive to WP:FOC and I get this kind of juvenile personalisation and insinuation about 'agendas' with not a source in sight. Look Kku, here is how it works: your ideas about "the risk of acrylamide consumption" do not matter. Neither do mine. To achieve NPOV about cancer effects we cite the WP:BESTSOURCES, i.e. the two foremost cancer-focused WP:MEDORGs on the planets, CRUK and ACS. Here is what they say about "the risk of acrylamide consumption":

• ACS (2022): "Acrylamide is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a “probable carcinogen,” based mainly on experiments in animals. However, a large number of studies in humans have found no strong evidence that dietary acrylamide is linked with an increased risk of any type of cancer."[4]
• CRUK (2021): "Eating foods high in acrylamide, like toast, charred root vegetables or roast potatoes will not increase your risk of cancer".

These people know the field. Random Wikipedia editors do not. What these orgs say corresponds well to what we currently have in the article lede. You, it seems, would have Wikipedia follow some kind of dumb tabloid logic whereby as soon as the word 'carcinogenic' is even mentioned then it's OMG it can cause cancer! And yes, this mirrors the same thing that happened with mobile phones and glyphosate, and feeds exactly those 'myths' which CRUK is warning about. Wikipedia is better than that, and you need to be better than that. Bon courage (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No I didn't. I quoted one large section from the top of the ACS document. If you feed the stuff to animals, they get lots of cancer. Yet you repeat "there no consistent evidence that dietary acrylamide exposure is associated with the risk of any type of cancer." What nonsense. Yes the source says that is true IN HUMANS. It's still a false general statement. It is not supported by the source as a general statement.

You don't dispute that
I accurately quoted the ACS.
Carcinogenicity can of course be expected at lower doses.
Safety decisions are routinely made based on animal study data.
It's highly toxic to primates, as I just noted on the talk page.

It's highly regulated in the EU:
https://www.bakeryandsnacks.com/Article/2022/09/15/Changes-to-acrylamide-regulations-in-2023-What-biscuit-and-cookie-manufacturers-need-to-know2#:~:text=EU%20Regulation%202017%2F2158%20on,maximum%20level%20of%20500%20ppm. RudolfoMD (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nobody cares about cancer just in lab animals. And if you start talking about something 'causing cancer' the reader will always assume it's in human beings. What you call "nonsense" is a direct quotation from the NCI. Hint: Wikipedia follows such reliable sources. EU regulation sounds wise, as acrylamide has various toxicities, but as to cancer you've owned yourself a bit with that link, which observes:

A systematic review published in Frontiers of Nutrition in April 2022 even concluded there was no association between high dietary acrylamide exposure and increased risk of any of the investigated cancers, including those of oral cavity, oesophageal, gastric, colon-rectal, pancreatic, prostate, bladder, lung, renal, lymphoma, myeloma, thyroid, brain, larynx and melanoma.

Bon courage (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Bon courage, The review Brantsæter et al. cites 5 publications to justify the list of confounding factors. You removed most of the factors. You did this 10 minutes after I inserted the sentence. Are you so familiar with all 5 publications that you can dismiss them like that?

The following two reviews (in addition to Brantsaeter) cite income as a confounding factor. Should I now reinstate the list of confounds citing three reviews? I initially did not want to burden the section further with citations to factors that from my own observations in my surroundings seem to be self evident. But I am happy to cite all three reviews. Or perhaps you know a lot more than I do about the subject. What do you think?

A Systematic Review of Organic Versus Conventional Food Consumption: Is There a Measurable Benefit on Human Health? Vanessa Vigar, Stephen Myers, Christopher Oliver , Jacinta Arellano , Shelley Robinson and Carlo Leifert. Nutrients 2020, 12(1), 7; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12010007

Azizur Rahman, Parnian Baharlouei, Eleanor Hui Yan Koh, Diana Gabby Pirvu, Rameesha Rehmani, Mateo Arcos, Simron Puri. A Comprehensive Analysis of Organic Food: Evaluating Nutritional Value and Impact on Human Health. Foods 2024, 13 (2) , 208. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13020208 Bosula (talk) 10:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I based my edit on the relevant portion of the single cited review, not "5 publications". I suggest discussion of the context would be better at the article's Talk page. Bon courage (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. I'll make a comment there. I'll copy the relevant text in. I suspect that they mention the confounding factors more than once in the paper, and you noted a thinner version. Bosula (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made a comment on the talk page. Please have a look. Bosula (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bon courage (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Invective in edit summary. Thank you. Nutez (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sheesh! Bon courage, I wrote in your defense there. This type of revenge is petty. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think my time was better spend asleep! Disappointing that nobody picked up that "fuckdoodle" is an intensification of "flapdoodle".[5]. Bon courage (talk) 06:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wish I'd seen this thread before it was closed. I don't think anyone's ever called me anything as sweet and cuddly as "fuckdoodle". Phil Bridger (talk) 08:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I love this comment (without formatting): "ScottishFinnishRadish, indeed, "fucknoodle" would be eligible for a "coolest edit summary" award, if anything. Bishonen | tålk 22:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)."[6] You could frame this on your wall. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have to wonder what was going through SFR's mind when they typed 'fucknoodle'. The D and N keys are quite distant, so it's no simple typo. Bon courage (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just don't fuck a poodle (unless you're another poodle). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Never a good idea to wikt:screw the pooch! Bon courage (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, you dog! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This isn't going to be an excuse that answers any questions, but my phone autocorrected to that. I don't think I've ever used fucknoodle either, but I did manage an adult store 17 or so years ago, so maybe I did? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We've had a couple disagreements over edits now, specifically relating to the leads in medical pages, and in the interest of avoiding acrimonious disputes I thought it would be better to have a productive conversation about editing philosophies. (If you don't want to discuss anything further, no worries, just say so).

It seems that the general view of you and other seasoned editors in these areas is that of the skeptical movement – not that you or they are literally part of this movement, or identify with it, but rather that Wikipedia policies are taken to embody its general principles, within certain parameters. Is that a fair characterization? I just feel sort of confused, because I have a hard time getting my brain to a place where the policies are aligned with that level of skepticism (and I am not saying that such skepticism is bad, just that I have a hard time reading the policies as embodying it). But maybe there is a history of arbitration decisions that have formally clarified these matters, or other things that I am missing. AtavisticPillow (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First of all let me reassure you I detect no 'acrimony' either from me, or you, or indeed anyone in the recent discussions we've been in. As to the 'Skeptical movement' personally I feel jaundiced about that whole phenomenon, which largely seemed to me to be an American thing anyway (I put it in the past tense, since the death of James Randi and the story arc of Michael Shermer has rather thrown that movement into disarray). There, the main criteria for entry seemed to be little more than to dunk on homeopathy and cleave to the words of Richard Dawkins; all very easy in more innocent times. Now it's all more complex than that, but on Wikipedia there is this saving notion of WP:NPOV, and in particular the WP:FRINGESUBJECTS and WP:PSCI sections of that, which mean that - yes - Wikipedia does have its thumb on the scale in favour of a rational, mainstream, dare I say orthodox, worldview. That is probably why Wikipedia has consistently been cited by scholars as resistant to misinformation in general and medical misinformation in particular. As a final observation I'd add that you only seem to have edited in FRINGE medical topic areas so far. That probably isn't a good way to get a feel for how Wikipedia works overall. Bon courage (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the reply, that's really helpful. I'm basically a novice editor (as you know), and what got me interested in this stuff was seeing a family member who had serious lasting effects from a brain injury successfully diagnosed with convergence insufficiency and successfully treated with neuro-optometric rehabilitation (lasting effects just were the CI). This led me out of sheer theoretical interest (prior to anything on Wikipedia) familiarizing myself with a good deal of recent tertiary sources on concussion, which all treated "vision therapy" is a viable treatment option in certain TBI cases. When I then saw that the Wikipedia article did not reflect that at all, I made what I think you call the "Big Mistake." I appreciate you taking the time and being patient with me as we discussed these things; I imagine it is frustrating to confront the same attitude and the same mistake so regularly (I also probably should have disclosed a more or less personal experience with VT sooner, based on my reading of COI at the time I wasn't sure it was pertinent).

But in any case, the VT case got me interested in how fringe topics are discussed more generally on Wikipedia, which led me to surf around other such issues and see how they were discussed. So you're absolutely right that that what I'm looking at isn't what is representative of Wikipedia as a whole. Alas, I probably find the fringe stuff interesting because it presents all sorts of interesting philosophical issues about certainty, neutrality, the status of scientific knowledge, and so on. (Incidentally, if you asked me personally how I feel about acupuncture, I would tell you that I feel it is quackery! I just remain unsure that Wikipedia is or should be in the business of foregrounding that characterization so prominently). And I still have trouble seeing WP:FRINGE as demanding quite the level of skepticism others seem to feel it requires – but it's probably best for my blood pressure just to let it go. AtavisticPillow (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, just passing by and the word “acupuncture” got my attention. I can tell you personally that no, it’s not quackery (I’ve never heard of anyone saying that it’s quackery except here at Wikipedia, I’d never tried it though). That said, I’m not sure if it’s efficacy is the same for different places. What I mean is, for example, would the result be different if it’s done with a needle made in India, instead of a needle made in the US? Would the result be different if the needle is made with metal A, but not metal B? Or, just the length of the needle could make a difference? Would the angle of insertion affects the efficacy? For how long should the needle be inserted? And so on ... These are just some hypothetical examples. The “standard practice” probably varies for different places. I won’t be surprised if people in a place, who don’t know much about an alternative therapy, or haven’t heard of many successful cases about it, would tend to call it “quackery”, though I can tell you that’s a *very* rare opinion in some (very large) parts of the world. IMHO, a failed surgery that results in some permanent disabilities in a person maybe even more dangerous and “quackery”. Anyway, I do agree very much with you that one needs to take good care of their own blood pressure (or other similar health issues), so I’d better stay out of this contentious issue ;-) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or just use a toothpick[7] ! Bon courage (talk) 08:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My post above wasn’t a reply to your post. I was replying to AtavisticPillow.

So you are citing the dated (2013, over ten years ago) work from the personal homepage of this person, who is “known for criticism of pseudo-science”.

And I’m surprised by your attitude. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, it was an editorial in a scholarly journal (Anesthesia & Analgesia). Surely an eminent scientist who is a critic of pseudoscience is just the kind of expert who is valuable when considering acupuncture (which is a pseudoscience)? Bon courage (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia has a number of policies that necessitate limiting medical claims to those that are supported by strong evidence. Room for disagreement about how to best implement and characterize that desideratum (as evidenced above). I happen to suspect acupuncture's effects on pain are largely due to the placebo effect; there could be specific forms or practices of acupuncture (different insertion points or whatever) that are better than a placebo for pain relief, but it's hard to say with any certainty.

Pseudoscience is just when beliefs claim a scientific validity for themselves but are incompatible with the scientific method, because the beliefs themselves are not revised in the face of countervailing evidence. Acupuncture is pretty clearly that; if acupuncturists at large began to respond to evidence of what worked and what does not, it would no longer be pseudoscience. Other things are harder to classify: imo vision therapy contains a mix of scientific and pseudo-scientific practices, as does (in my view) much contemporary psychology. AtavisticPillow (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I understand it, acupuncture posits a system of bodily channels which maps onto the river systems in China, and through which flows an unknown form of energy which can be harnessed for therapeutic effect by inserting needles at the correct points. So yeah, some kind of pseudoscience. If 'placebo' causes pain reduction then it's not down to the acupuncture, but the overall experience. Bon courage (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BC, you know me, and you know that I'm no defender of woo content. I want you to know that I think you are being too quick to revert to what you want on the page, and you need to engage with what I have been pointing out in talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry about that Tryptofish, TBH I hadn't really taken in the material after the break, which is my fault. I have hopefully made amends by responding ... Bon courage (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! I've responded to your responses. And, with the new sources that you found, I've changed my mind back to where we were before: [8]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]