From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Otheus is busy intermittently and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
 |
This user sleeps, but not for predictable amounts of time. |
|
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Christene LeDoux, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Professor Ennis/the BBC's Horizon Homeopathy Test/and 20/20's Homeopathy Experiment
Greetings. I just got a chance to read your posting from March 2007 at [1]. You provided an excellent summary of Professor Ennis' and my concerns about the BBC's and ABC's "junk tv science." To clarify, Ennis assumed (incorrectly) that the Horizon experiment was a replication of her study, until I obtained the protocol from the experimenter, Wayne Turnbull. I have now posted the protocol that he used [2]. I discovered this serious problem just before the 20/20 program was going to begin their study. This information shocked the 20/20 producer, but typical of tv, he decided that the "show must go on." Unlike the BBC that specifically stated that their test was a "repeat" of Ennis' work, the 20/20 show didn't make that claim (wisely). They instead asserted that "their" experts said that the study was well-designed and well-controlled, though they didn't mention that none of their experts had any experience with basophil research, let alone homeopathic research (whoops). Therefore, junk science became junk journalism. If you have any more thoughts here, let's talk. Dana Ullman Talk 03:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's pretty cool of you to follow up like that. I see a lot more has been done to that page (and the talk page) since I went semi-dormant. I wish I could add something to the conversation, but I cannot. The trail is a bit cold for me, and I am busy IRL. Otheus (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I understand...we all seem to have a lot on our plate. What is interesting in THIS story is that I have darn good evidence that the BBC and ABC's 20/20's effort to create "reality science television" in a way that created junk science and junk journalism. It isn't hard to see this by simply looking at the trail that I've cited. What is further interesting is that Dr. Martin Chaplin, one of the world's leading experts on water research, has just begun to edit on wikipedia (yeah, I know that "other" people are reading this, but my ethic is to be transparent because I have nothing to hide). I hope you will reconsider or at least encouraging other people to look under the covers a bit. Dana Ullman Talk 00:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- If you could supply the evidence re the BBC and ABC ibid, it would be useful. Also any documentation about Dr Chaplin apart from the SL website to support the world expert label will help. Acleron (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Dana, please don't follow up to Acleron here. Acleron, this is my talk page, not Dana's or the topic's. Though this certainly isn't a private conversation, your interjection here seems to me to be an agitation, a challenge; I don't know if this counts as wikistalking behavior, but a pattern of such posts probably would. --Otheus (talk) 09:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Gary Parker
Hi, I just noticed your comment from a while back on my talk page. I'm not aware of any article on him on Wikipedia and I can't find any AfDs so I think we don't have one. I don't know if he meets WP:BIO or not. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
