User talk:Friarslantern

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have now added an URL to the Weston Price foundation several times to cholesterol. I fail to understand why you cannot place this link on the relevant article (hypercholesterolemia). Can you explain on Talk:Cholesterol what you are trying to achieve? JFW | T@lk 19:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No need to email me. When it comes to unconventional theories, the "external links" section is not the place. Clearly, the article is about the problems with high cholesterol, not cholesterol in itself. If anywhere, it therefore belongs on hypercholesterolemia.
I will keep on referring to Weston Price as "the dentist", and we already have plenty of material about Dr Ravnskov and his noisy bunch. WP:WEIGHT is the relevant policy here. JFW | T@lk 05:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] I have psychological problems

I am currently really depressed about Wikipedia and need some help. OK, I'm being a little funny on purpose here, no serious 911 situation here. I saw your name on the Editor Assistance list, and decided to go to you, as a starting place. I see your main area of interest and expertise seems to be on the technical side, and my concern is policy-related, but I also sense you have a good grasp where to send me for what I need.

I've been using Wikipedia as a reader for years now, but only in the last few months have made any real edits. I've been an avid fan of what Wikipedia is -- well, of what I thought Wikipedia was. I hit a roadblock, though, recently.

I'm a firm believer in a controversial theory -- that is, that cholesterol is not the initial or principal cause of heart disease. I understand this is generally assumed by the public to be true -- that cholesterol is the problem, or at least, the main problem. But I firmly believe otherwise. Accordingly, upon noticing that the Wikipedia article on cholesterol had no reference to any kind of alternative theories about cholesterol's role in health, I added a link to the end of the External Links list, called "Alternative hypothesis about cholesterol's role in health" that linked to an article by the main proponent of this admitedly controversial theory.

What turns out to be a very prolific user (he says he's no. 102 for number of edits) deleted the link immediately. I tried the next day, and he deleted it again, blah blah blah.... I was ready to defend my position (geared up since this user calls himself a doctor, is an administrator, and from the start used consdescending language -- I finally viewed the talk page and saw that other people had tried to argue about some inclusion of this idea in the article over time), etc., and this was the roadblock I hit: he directed me to the Undue Weight policy, which includes a statement that positions held by only a very small or tiny minority "do not belong" in Wikipedia.

This was news to me, and has really changed my whole view of Wikipedia. Since then, I've also noticed what seems to be a growing prejudice against "lists of things" such as references to popular culture references to X, and have realized -- many users, and Wikimedia itself, seem to have what I would call an overweening concern about Wikipedia appearing respectable. I'm sympathetic with the desire to remain user-friendly, and useful, etc. But to say that lists of trivia don't belong in Wikipedia (when clearly, there are people who will read a list of trivia and find it useful, for reasearch, or insight) or that views held by tiny minorities don't belong here (I'd always thought that Wikipedia ~would~ be the place for someone to report Copernicus's finding that the earth wasn't the center of the univers, but they would have had to wait several decades AFTER 1543 for editors of the time to no longer be able to say that it was a view held only by a tiny minority!). Thus, my current disappointment. I undertand the policy about emphasizing theories in relation to their popularity, but to not allow AT ALL the view of a tiny minority (like my cholesterol theory) ??? I believe that this guy who was deleting my links does not want any mention at all on what seems like His page on cholesterol, and he can use Wikimedia to back him up.

So, rather than get into how to go about referring to this other theory in the main Cholesterol article, I guess I should skip my denial and go straight to asking -- is there a place here for people like me? hehehe... I'd start my own ~Pedia website that corrected this, but I don't have my own server, etc.!!! But maybe there's another wiki-pedia (small w) out there you know of that's not as establishment-conscious? Or a group of similar minded people like me within Wikipedia? I'm of the opinion that articles about theories that have minority competing opionions, even if subscribed to by a tiny minority of experts, COULD have a section at the end, for example, that said (tongue in cheek, sort of) "Links to Disreputable Alternative Theories About this Topic" and it wouldn't tarnish Wikipedia's respectabillity; it seems to me that's what Mr. Wales intends -- to preserve at all costs Wikipedia's respectability. I'd ask about how to change policy (the Village Pump, right?), but I'm afraid it seems to set in stone, and I'm sure Wikimedia has no obligation to change it, even if it happen to become the consensus of the Village Pump.

H E L P !!!

-Bummed out in Berkeley Friarslantern 16:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'm always glad to help.
Let's see, where to start? Hmmm... Wikipedia is a diverse community comprised of volunteers with a wide variety of attitudes, approaches, styles, and philosophies. Personality clashes and disagreements are inevitable. Don't let it get you down. It comes with the territory. See Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies and Dispute resolution.
With respect to your current predicament, check out Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:Consensus, two key policies that probably apply to your situation.
There are a heck of a lot of heart diseases, so let's narrow the discussion down to the one I believe you are talking about. While cholesterol is certainly a correlative risk factor in atherosclerosis, at this time it appears that inflammation is the primary culprit in the pathology of that disease. So let me use inflammation as an example... The inflammation theory has gained enough momentum that it is no longer held by a tiny minority -- a significant number of scientists are studying it these days.
There's a great deal of web traffic on inflammation in relation to heart disease. For example, on google, a search for cholesterol and "heart disease" comes up 2.6 million times, while a search for inflammation and "heart disease" comes up 1.8 million times. Inflammation as a cause to heart disease is no longer a tiny minority position.
Google searches provide us with clues, but they hold little weight in Wikipedia discussions on the weight of positions and the factual basis of claims . For that, we must rely on the policies on Notability and Verifiability. The opposing editor stated that the position you tried to include was a tiny minority. Well, how many professionals in the relevant fields support the theory? If you can establish a number that is clearly not "tiny", then what you are dealing with is a minor position, and minor positions warrant mention in articles on relevant topics. If you can find a reliable source that establishes that the cause of heart disease to which you are referring is not a tiny minority position, via numbers (like the number of members in a relevant professional association, number of papers being published annually on the subject, etc.), then you will have a strong argument for its mention.
Keep in mind that "undue weight" applies to the treatment of a topic in an article not specifically about that topic. Stepping back for a wider outlook on your situation, Wikipedia includes articles on very esoteric and miniscule topics, so your topic probably warrants an article of its own -- encyclopedic means "covers everything", well, just about. For a topic's treatment on Wikipedia as a whole, as opposed to within an overview article or specific related article, again see Notability and Verifiability.
Wikipedia wishes to be factual, but we have to guard against tiny minority positions (including activists, entrepreneurs, etc.) who wish to use Wikipedia to promote their causes, companies, and products. Yes, this risks falling prey to the logical fallacy Appeal to the majority, but that's just a price we have to pay. They key is to find the proper balance.
So, my advice is to report the facts as supported by the evidence, somewhere on Wikipedia, and then provide links to those articles wherever those links are relevant. The Transhumanist    23:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 23:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homeopathy rewrite draft

Hello, I noticed that you've had some edits to the Homeopathy page and I just wanted to let you know that I've re-written the article with the help of numerous editors and it is a great improvement on the current article. I thought that you might want to contribute to the draft before it goes live. Please don't edit the draft directly, except for minor changes. Make proposed changes on the talk page of the draft so that we can all discuss them and add them if there is a consensus. The link to the draft can be found here: Link to rough draft. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Westward Ho

Hi there. Just to let you know, the best way to contact people about wikipedia stuff is on their talk pages. Thanks! — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 14:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative Medicine

I'm going to be nice, because you appear to be a good editor. But you have violated WP:3RR. You really should revert your last edit, and we'll come to a conclusion, I'm sure. I think Alternative medicine is the biggest bunch of hogwash ever (short of Creationism and Republicans); however, your edit is highly pejorative. BTW, I won't revert your last edit, because it would be 4RR. I think you should show the same consideration and revert. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll be really clear with you, OrangeMarlin. Three reverts is too many -- you cite the rule yourself. And, since you did 3 before I did, I'm going to let this one go and revert it tomorrow morning, eh?
And what in the world do you mean by pejorative edits? Ummm.... I think my reasoning is pretty clear: I put reasons in my edit summaries, and then a section on the article's talk page, which you STILL haven't replied to (ie, build consensus?) I'm sure you have something to say about it. I just don't get it. Mine is a point of style that effects POV.
But for tonight, let's just sleep on it, what do you say? Friarslantern 02:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Davies

You reverted my edits to the page about Paul Davies with the comment "not a soapbox, duh", which I presume to mean that you thought my edits were in some way inaccurate. However, the article was inaccurate in referring to Davies as a physicist. He has not worked in physics for more than 20 years. He was a physicist, but he is not one now, hence my correction to the article. He has not published articles in peer-reviewed physics journals relating to new research in physics since the mid 80's. If you check Davies own bibliography you will find this to be true. Please do not change my edits without evidence to support your actions. User:Stuart.Allie —Preceding comment was added at 05:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_19#Directly_opposed_to_what.3F

and

Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_19#Third_para.2C_first_sentence

Out of curiosity, which of the three references supporting this sentence did you read? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I will read up on these. To answer your question, I read both articles cited in the section you reverted. There are two references there, I'm not sure which would be the third (?) Friarslantern (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you must have looked at the citations to read these references I'm a bit surprised you didn't see there were three of them. They all say much the same thing, which is not really a controversial statement. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

  1. Ernst E (2005). "Is homeopathy a clinically valuable approach?". Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 26 (11): 547–8. PMID 16165225. 
  2. Johnson T, Boon H (2007). "Where does homeopathy fit in pharmacy practice?". American journal of pharmaceutical education 71 (1): 7. PMID 17429507. 
  3. Shang A, Huwiler-Müntener K, Nartey L, et al (2005). "Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy". Lancet 366 (9487): 726–732. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67177-2. PMID 16125589. 

[edit] Homoepathy article probation notification

You should be aware that Homeopathy and related articles are under probation - Editors making disruptive edits to these pages may be banned by an administrator from homeopathy and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of blocks and bans, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Your ?warning ...to my talk page... was this meant as a specific notice that you feel I've been disruptive or simply a notice given to all involved? Please reply. Friarslantern (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a notice for the record. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)