Talk:Mucoid cap

message: As in many other alt med articles (and fringe articles more generally), anyone who does not provide evidence supporting the claimed treatment or condition is called a "skeptic" when most are just ordinary doctors, scientists, and so on.  We don't need to label these people "skeptics" any more than we need to call those who adhere to some given practice "true believers." So how about we minimize the use of the term "skeptic" except where it's truly applicable?  Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed--ZayZayEM (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Skeptics

message: The timeline needs to avoid original research and fringe theory. We can not perform analysis ourselves. This means that even if something historically resembles something that could perhaps maybe be interpretted as "OMG MUCOID PLAQUE!!!1!", it does not mean it is relevant or verifiable.
The historic reports that were recently added  have no relevance to the topic at hand, which is (Anderson's?) modern concept of a mucoid plaque.
As discussed above Anderson is not a reliable source himself. So even if he claims "OMG Mucoid plaque!!1!" it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion unless the claim is directly relevant to describing what a mucoid plaque per WP:SELFPUB (ie. that Anderson thinks a "bizarre stool" from Color Atlas of the Digestive System is linked to mucoid plaque is not really relevant, Anderson is not an authority on human coprology). Neither do Anderson's interpretation of pre 1950s medical articles that are not available for scrutiny and verification.
Material that is discussed in in reliable 3rd party sources may be included, but must be accurately represented. Including material from notable third party CAM publications is fine, as long as it is represented as coming from such a publication.
The inherent notability of this "condition" is not that it is based in reality, but more that it is widely circulated concept amongst CAM practioners. (This is coming from the consensus generated by 2 x AFD discussion). This is not the place to either disprove or prove that mucoid plaque exists. It is a place to describe the concept.--ZayZayEM (talk) 09:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verified timeline 

message: I am unsure why the weasely term "some" continues to be reinserted in front of the alternative medicine usage. If it is used by "some" alternative medicine people, than it is used in alternative medicine.
The only purpose "some" can be used without specifying is to try an place a (negative) POV. --ZayZayEM (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I admit to being baffled by your interpretation. It's quite simple. Mucoid plaque is not a general "alternative medicine" concept. It's a barely notable subclaim in the subset of colonic irrigiation. It's essentially the product of a single entrepreneur. Does NCCAM mention it? No. Does any reputable, reliable alt-med source mention it? Not that I've seen, but feel free to bring some sources here for discussion.The lead should make clear that this is not a widely accepted part of alternative medicine, but a concept promoted by a small handful of websites and self-published books. That's an integral part of informing the reader, not inserting a "negative POV". MastCell Talk 06:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Telling the Wikitruth is a very serious part of WP:WEASEL. Wikipedia has no duty to make things "clear" if they aren't backed up sources. That's why we need sources. If we can't find sources, this article is doomed to fail and should be renominated for deletion.--ZayZayEM (talk) 07:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Wikitruth"? The sources we have are quite clear, that this is a "non-credible concept" (to put it politely). I don't see the need to soften or obscure what those independent sources say; in fact, I think honesty and NPOV demand that we be clear about it. MastCell Talk 20:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Good CAM Bad CAM

message: "The term was coined by Richard Anderson, a naturopath and entrepreneur who sells a range of products that claim to cleanse the body of such plaques"
This statement is very poor. For one Andersons status as an "entrepenuer" is not relevnat to his authority here (whatever authority he might have).
Neither is it appropriate for Wikipedia to be going on about how he sells curative stuff.
If the point is to show that he's a guy who only serves to profit from perpetuating this idea that he coincidentally created and cures **wink wink** - then SAY so. If you can't say so without violating POV - then you can't imply it either. (I think this may be where the straight.com article may come into play).
It is a similar motivation for not using the word "skeptic". This sentance can be interpreted two very different ways depending on your perspective on the topic.--ZayZayEM (talk) 07:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's a reasonable point. I'll look through straight.com - most of the sources seem to make a point that Anderson profits by selling products which "cleanse" mucoid plaque, but our wording could be more direct and more clear. MastCell Talk 20:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inadvertent Skeptics for Anderson? 

message: First of all, it is a well established NPOV policy that statements must be attributed to a source making the statement. 
Second, your objection to calling them "skeptics" is bizarre. The title of the blog is "skeptoid". The whole blog is in defense of people who want to be called skeptics. The author of the blog insists on being called a skeptic. The author of the blog is proud of being called a skeptic. The blog is trying to support and encourage skepticism. To not call Brian Dunning a skeptic would be disrespectful to him and his whole mission as well as inaccurate.
Third, the use of the word "speculate" is an exact dictionary definition of what Brian Dunning is doing. In fact, on his web site http://skeptoid.com/references.php , Brian says that "you will not find transcripts on this site to be footnoted or otherwise supplemented with authoritative references" because "you shouldn't believe me or anyone else." You are disrespecting Brian Dunning by insisting on using him as an authoritative source that should be believed when he insists otherwise. Heelop (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not need to be respectful to anyone. Wikipedia also does not mind about possible dictionary definitions of words. Words can have multiple meanings, being careful about wording is an important part of . You are acting against previous consensus that has been brought up several times on this talk page (Talk:Mucoid_plaque#Skeptics). When acting against consensus you need to develop a new consensus before bringing in disputed changes (especially if they were previously disputed and decided against). Bold editing is fine, but if you are going to be bold, deal with with the bold-revert-discuss cycle. --ZayZayEM (talk) 09:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

text: ZayZayEM, if you look under that subheading (Talk:Mucoid_plaque#Skeptics) again, you will see that you agreed that the term "skeptic" may be applied "where it's truly applicable." My God ZayZayEM, it does not get anymore applicable than this. If you go to Brian Dunning's blog spot and learn about him, you will see that he is undisputedly a skeptic. Furthermore, you both suggested, incorrectly, that Brian Dunning is an "ordinary doctor" or scientist. He is neither. He is just a skeptic as well as a computer engineer, which has nothing to do with human physiology or even biology. Heelop (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced this reference with a better source that makes the same conclusions. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the words "skeptics" and "speculate" 

message: Is there such a word as "microbioata", or should it be "microbiota"? Google seems to say there are a lot of hits for "microbioata", but I suspect it might be counting the "microbiota" hits as matching; some of the top few hits are in other languages, though some look like normal uses of that spelling.  ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's microbiota. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: Google Books
Digestion Takes Precedence Over Disease
By Anthony Raphael Leon
Published by Dog Ear Publishing, 2008
I really have no idea what to make of this book.
It has the looks of something self published (ie. I paid someone to print this for me).
Author is born-again Christian (and one-time vegetarian cook) who thinks health is about "following God's design". Has an interesting combination of "this is crap"/"this is not crap", without a real sophisticated filter beyond personal preference and I suspect the use of the internet as a major research tool. His phrasing when criticising of mucoid plaque is eerily similar, I would be surprised if articles like skeptoid etc. didn't serve as his primary basis (maybe even wikipedia). But perhaps that's undue cynicism.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Independent psyllium source

message: All editors of this page should be aware that this article comes under the set that are covered by Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions. Please read and familiarise yourself with this document. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions

message: See above and history.  Midgley (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, starting with a topic ban, and then proceeding to blocks. I also think a CU should be run, considering there are so many IPs who make the same types of edits. -- Fyslee (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. Circular reasoning and ignoring years of comments seems more than a reasonable attempt at debate. Editors have more things to do aside from being patient with the willfully ignorant.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to fire Heelop 

message: I think this statement may need editing:
"Various forms of colon cleansing were popular in the 19th and early 20th century.[11]"
It suggests to me that colon cleansing popularity was some sort of temporary abberancy. Is this really the case?
*Is colon cleansing no longer popular? (I'd hesitate a "No")
*Was colon cleansing no longer popular before this? (I do not know)
*Is this referring to particular geo-sphere (ie. East US and West Europe)? (I suspect it may be)
*Was there a sudden rise in colon cleansing skepticism after the the early 20th century? (I wish t'were so)
*is this time period considered the Golden Era of colon cleansing? (No clue)
Anyone care to discuss?--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victorian hosings 

message: I understand that as a controversial subject, this article has a very active talk page, but is there any way we could organize it into discussions related to particular topics and/or perhaps provide discussion summaries for "resolved" (meaning that there was a consensus among the editors who commented at the time) issues or something? It is really confusing and time consuming to go through and look for possible discussions relating to specific statements or sources etc, or to find out whether a particular issue has been brought up before. I noticed numerous discussions with vague section titles and numerous discussions about issues that had been previously discussed. It is prohibitive to improving the article to have to spend hours reading through the talk page just to attempt to find out whether a particular edit one is considering making has a relevant discussion somewhere on the talk page. And the quantity of writing here with no easy way to scan through it makes it more likely that someone is just going to bring up something that has already been discussed or make an edit that has already been rejected without even realizing it. I think this is a barrier to actually improving the article. Any ideas about what we could do to make things a bit easier? -MsBatfish (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I just realized that most of the discussion here is actually from 2 years ago or more. But it's strange, a lot of the issues seemed to never have been resolved. Discussion just seemed to drop off. -MsBatfish (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was an effort to publicise a service for profit, and the fashion in such things has moved on, I'm not sure to what.  Midgley (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we have some organization here? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Mucoid cap. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/report/2004/medinfo2004/pdffiles/papers/5509Soergel.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified