Dana Ullman on Wikipedia's Treatment of Homeopathy

[iii]

The Huffington Post has a blogpost.

h/t WP:FTN##Homeopathists are upset (T-H-L)

Background:

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy (T-H-L)

[EricBarbour]

The Huffington Post has a blogpost.

That's not a "blog post", it's one side of a talkpage argument.

And the talkpage for Homeopathy (T-H-L) is now up to fifty-nine archives....

[Randy from Boise]

The Huffington Post has a blogpost.

That's not a "blog post", it's one side of a talkpage argument.

.......The lunatic side.

RfB

[Kelly Martin]

The HuffPost article is a classic example of the usual pseudoscientific argument, mixed with a bit of "green jelly beans cause acne" (basically, if you do enough random studies, you'll eventually get one with the result you want).

[EricBarbour]

In case you're wondering: yes, Ullman himself used to fight with others on his own Wikipedia bio, and on homeopathy and (most recently) water-fluoridation articles. His principal opponents were Filll (T-C-L), Enric Naval (T-C-L), former arbitrator Vassyana (T-C-L) and a little noticed sockpuppet called Baegis (T-C-L). Topic banned in May 2008, completely banned for one year in the June 2008 arbitration. As usual, he was unwilling to back off, and was "ganged up on". What a tired old story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dana_Ullman/Archive_1

His own user talkpage is "funny". Latest edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =607347470

Hi Dana. I want to ask you - is this comment a pejorative involving your name I just realized they might mean you - or it is my inability to get the benign joke ? Flogging a dead horse George. Is your real name Dullman? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 19:25, 10 March 2014

Are you still banned from homeopathy? I think you might be and cannot find the reasons in the board. Anyhow. Thanks. (UTC --[User:George1935|George1935] 16:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

:Please excuse my tardiness. I do not do much with Wikipedia these days. It seems that certain Wikipedia editors work VERY hard to ban any person who attempts to provide objectivity to specific articles here...and we all know which ones in particular. These editors gang up and bully those people who try to a create a real online encyclopedia, rather than an editorial rant. My biggest mistake was deciding to edit under my REAL name. Certain editors claimed because I wrote books on a specific topic that I therefore had a "conflict of interest." It is amazing to note that MDs who write books or who practice conventional medicine are not determined to have a "conflict of interest," and certainly NO pharmacists are banned from writing about drugs, despite the fact that they sell the drugs. The double-standard at Wikipedia does not pass the smell test. If you contact me privately, we can discuss this more...but be very careful out there. The Wiki editors ARE out to get you, especially because you are citing research. And yes, I do consider referring to me OR to you as "Dullman" is pejorative. It is totally inappropriate. [User:DanaUllman|DanaUllman] 16:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

[Cla68]

Homeopathy is a good example of Wikipedia's administration being unable to enforce the NPOV policy. Homeopathy may be a bunch of hoo-hah, but that article about it on WP is supposed to be written so that it presents both sides and allows the reader to make up their own mind. That topic also illustrates the ethnocentristic attitude exhibited by WP's pseudoscience skeptic cabal. Homeopathy, from what I understand, is widely practiced and followed in India, the second most populated country in the world. The article, however, treats it almost completely from a Western scientific viewpoint.

[Notvelty]

Homeopathy is a good example of Wikipedia's administration being unable to enforce the NPOV policy. Homeopathy may be a bunch of hoo-hah, but that article about it on WP is supposed to be written so that it presents both sides and allows the reader to make up their own mind. That topic also illustrates the ethnocentristic attitude exhibited by WP's pseudoscience skeptic cabal. Homeopathy, from what I understand, is widely practiced and followed in India, the second most populated country in the world. The article, however, treats it almost completely from a Western scientific viewpoint.

What I don't understand is why the homeopathy people want a lot of information that supports their side. Surely their preference for an article should be the entire catalogue of pokemon with a few pixels of a pro-homeopathy article mixed in.

[Zoloft]

Homeopathy is a good example of Wikipedia's administration being unable to enforce the NPOV policy. Homeopathy may be a bunch of hoo-hah, but that article about it on WP is supposed to be written so that it presents both sides and allows the reader to make up their own mind. That topic also illustrates the ethnocentristic attitude exhibited by WP's pseudoscience skeptic cabal. Homeopathy, from what I understand, is widely practiced and followed in India, the second most populated country in the world. The article, however, treats it almost completely from a Western scientific viewpoint.

What I don't understand is why the homeopathy people want a lot of information that supports their side. Surely their preference for an article should be the entire catalogue of pokemon with a few pixels of a pro-homeopathy article mixed in.

No, no! They need a stub about homeopathy, add a critical statement, fight over it on the talk page, have the contents of both rev-deleted, and just leave the title of the article. The white space will have a 'memory' of the negative comments, and act as a treatment against criticism of homeopathy.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

Homeopathy is a good example of Wikipedia's administration being unable to enforce the NPOV policy. Homeopathy may be a bunch of hoo-hah, but that article about it on WP is supposed to be written so that it presents both sides and allows the reader to make up their own mind. That topic also illustrates the ethnocentristic attitude exhibited by WP's pseudoscience skeptic cabal. Homeopathy, from what I understand, is widely practiced and followed in India, the second most populated country in the world. The article, however, treats it almost completely from a Western scientific viewpoint.

An encyclopedia presents knowledge; it is not a bestiary of delusions in which the length of coverage is based on the number of believers.

Mathematician David J. Anick, who solved a problem of Serre's, became a physician (trained in alleopathy) and submitted a grant application motivated by homeopathic curiosity.

[AndyTheGrump]

An encyclopedia presents knowledge; it is not a bestiary of delusions in which the length of coverage is based on the number of believers.

[Randy from Boise]

Homeopathy is a good example of Wikipedia's administration being unable to enforce the NPOV policy. Homeopathy may be a bunch of hoo-hah, but that article about it on WP is supposed to be written so that it presents both sides and allows the reader to make up their own mind.

No, it's not. Wikipedia is supposed to describe the various sides of a controversial matter dispassionately and proportionately, not to create a condition of false equivalence of contending arguments...

Do a little research on HOMEOPATHY + POTENCY without visiting WP and get back to us with what you learn...

That topic also illustrates the ethnocentristic attitude exhibited by WP's pseudoscience skeptic cabal. Homeopathy, from what I understand, is widely practiced and followed in India, the second most populated country in the world. The article, however, treats it almost completely from a Western scientific viewpoint.

This tells us something about the state of science in India.

I had to remove a paragraph of text from the WP article on Black mamba (T-H-L) about a homeopathic remedy for mamba venom. I've got no problem whatsoever with getting a big broom and sweeping looney tune pseudoscience to a small dusty corner of Wikipedia, and tossing its adherents out of the room one by one with a science geek holding each limb...

RfB

[Poetlister]

(basically, if you do enough random studies, you'll eventually get one with the result you want).

Indeed, if you require a p of 5%, this will happen 5% of the time.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

Homeopathy is a good example of Wikipedia's administration being unable to enforce the NPOV policy. Homeopathy may be a bunch of hoo-hah, but that article about it on WP is supposed to be written so that it presents both sides and allows the reader to make up their own mind. That topic also illustrates the ethnocentristic attitude exhibited by WP's pseudoscience skeptic cabal. Homeopathy, from what I understand, is widely practiced and followed in India, the second most populated country in the world. The article, however, treats it almost completely from a Western scientific viewpoint.

An encyclopedia presents knowledge; it is not a bestiary of delusions in which the length of coverage is based on the number of believers.

Mathematician David J. Anick, who solved a problem of Serre's, became a physician (trained in alleopathy) and submitted a grant application motivated by homeopathic curiosity.

Regarding Indian homeopathy:
Alan Sokal and others have written about Vedic science, which has been promoted with "Ph.D."'s at Indian Universities. An interesting article appeared in Dissent by Meera Nanda

The Science Wars in India
Meera Nanda ▪ Winter 1997
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/ ... s-in-india

Prophets facing backward: postmodern critiques of science and Hindu nationalism in India
M Nanda - 2003 - Rutgers University Press

Fears of Dissent's merger with Commentary seem to have been unfounded. Regarding David Anick and Ullman:

"No discrete signals suggesting a difference between remedies and controls were seen, via high sensitivity 1H-NMR spectroscopy. The results failed to support a hypothesis that remedies made in water contain long-lived non-dynamic alterations of the H-bonding pattern of the solvent. "
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/4/15

Nonetheless Anick is quoted by Ullman:

STATEMENT ABOUT DANA ULLMAN, MPH,
by DAVID ANICK, MD, PhD., Harvard School of Medicine:

"You are the Jon Stewart of homeopathy, the way you combine information ("gee I didn't know that!") with humor.
And you avoid defensiveness, which is terrific."
https://www.homeopathic.com/About/Dana_Biography.html

Speaking of Dissent ("The Science Wars in India" by Meera Nanda, Dissent, Winter 1997), Dissent's merger with Commentary seem to have been an unfounded rumor.

"I heard that Commentary and Dissent had merged and formed Dysentery" (Annie Hall)

[Cla68]

This tells us something about the state of science in India.

So, you feel that Western medicine/science must be imposed on the Indian people whether they want it or not because we know better and it's for their own good. This is the attitude that comes through on many of WP's pseudoscience articles. I wouldn't say that it's racism, but I do believe it's a form of ethnocentrism.

[AndyTheGrump]

This tells us something about the state of science in India.

So, you feel that Western medicine/science must be imposed on the Indian people whether they want it or not because we know better and it's for their own good. This is the attitude that comes through on many of WP's pseudoscience articles. I wouldn't say that it's racism, but I do believe it's a form of ethnocentrism.

You do realise that homoeopathy is a Western invention too?

[lonza leggiera]

This tells us something about the state of science in India.

So, you feel that Western medicine/science must be imposed on the Indian people whether they want it or not because we know better and it's for their own good. This is the attitude that comes through on many of WP's pseudoscience articles. I wouldn't say that it's racism, but I do believe it's a form of ethnocentrism.

You do realise that homoeopathy is a Western invention too?

Piffle. Like all great scientific advances allegedly discovered by westerners it's already recorded in the Vedas.

[Randy from Boise]

This tells us something about the state of science in India.

So, you feel that Western medicine/science must be imposed on the Indian people whether they want it or not because we know better and it's for their own good. This is the attitude that comes through on many of WP's pseudoscience articles. I wouldn't say that it's racism, but I do believe it's a form of ethnocentrism.

I'm fine with science-centric content.

Astrology is big in India, too, by the way, so add that to your growing laundry list of cultural oppressions...

RfB

[Peter Damian]

Homeopathy is a good example of Wikipedia's administration being unable to enforce the NPOV policy. Homeopathy may be a bunch of hoo-hah, but that article about it on WP is supposed to be written so that it presents both sides and allows the reader to make up their own mind.

How would this apply e.g. to the Flat Earth theory? I can see how it would be interesting to understand why some people believed the earth was flat, but would you actually want them editing the article about the earth and arguing with people on the talk page?

On your argument later on about 'ethnocentrism' or whatever, suppose there was a culture somewhere which believed in a flat earth, is it 'ethnocentrism' to impose your 'belief system' on them? Perhaps their belief was the result of lack of knowledge or lack of scientific instruments. Would you deliberately prevent them gaining this knowledge? Or would this actually be a form of imperialism, i.e. deliberately withholding the science because you wanted to preserve this 'quaint' culture, and keep them in some kind of museum?

It's not an easy question.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

This tells us something about the state of science in India.

So, you feel that Western medicine/science must be imposed on the Indian people whether they want it or not because we know better and it's for their own good. This is the attitude that comes through on many of WP's pseudoscience articles. I wouldn't say that it's racism, but I do believe it's a form of ethnocentrism.

You do realise that homoeopathy is a Western invention too?

Piffle. Like all great scientific advances allegedly discovered by westerners it's already recorded in the Vedas.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

This tells us something about the state of science in India.

So, you feel that Western medicine/science must be imposed on the Indian people whether they want it or not because we know better and it's for their own good. This is the attitude that comes through on many of WP's pseudoscience articles. I wouldn't say that it's racism, but I do believe it's a form of ethnocentrism.

The orientalist and new-age truncation of Indian rationalism and the exaggeration of Indian mysticism is a form of (imperialist) psychological projection, like the racist projections of animal sexuality and magic on African-Americans and (in e.g. Colombia on indigenous Americans).

In reality, India has a much longer tradition of rationalism and analysis than even Greece, a tradition which owes much to Jainism and Islam, etc.

Indian Traditions and the Western Imagination, Amartya Sen
Daedalus, Vol. 126, No. 2, Human Diversity (Spring, 1997), pp. 1-26

This essay (or a similar essay) appears in A. K. Sen's collection, The Argumentative Indian.
http://books.google.se/books?id=5HIMAQAAMAAJ
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20027426

South American projection is discussed in
Taussig, Michael. Folk Healing and the Structure of Conquest. Journal of Latin American Lore. 6, 1980. Republished in: Norman Whitten and Arlene Torres (Editors). Blackness in Latin America and the Carribean: Social Dynamics and Cultural transformations. Indiana University Press. September 1, 1998. Paperback, 536 pages, Language English, ISBN: 025321193X

[Kelly Martin]

In reality, India has a much longer tradition of rationalism and analysis than even Greece, a tradition which owes much to Jainism and Islam, etc.

Hm. Jainism was founded around 550 BCE. Islam was founded around 900 AD. The period of classical Greek philosophy is generally regarded as being roughly 450 BCE to 300 BCE. I wasn't aware that there were any Indian Islamic or Jainist time travelling philosophers.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

In reality, India has a much longer tradition of rationalism and analysis than even Greece, a tradition which owes much to Jainism and Islam, etc.

Hm. Jainism was founded around 550 BCE. Islam was founded around 900 AD. The period of classical Greek philosophy is generally regarded as being roughly 450 BCE to 300 BCE. I wasn't aware that there were any Indian Islamic or Jainist time-travelling philosophers.

For a great river (T-H-L), a tributary (T-H-L) need not lead to the river's headwaters (T-H-L).

As an aside, I mentioned Jainism and Islam to emphasize the cosmopolitanism of Indian rationalism, which has sources besides Hindu philosophy. Indian grammars and logics were written over 2.5 thousand years ago (and hence earlier than Aristotle's, I observe), according to Sen,
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/20027426
and a serious encyclopedia, which states

"By the fifth century BCE, rational inquiry into a wide range of topics was under way, including agriculture, architecture, astronomy, grammar, law, logic, mathematics, medicine, phonology, and statecraft. Aside from the world's earliest extant grammar, Pāṇini's Aṣṭādhyāyī, however, no works devoted to these topics actually date from this pre-classical period. Nonetheless, scholars agree that incipient versions of the first extant texts on these topics were being formulated and early versions of them were redacted by the beginning of the common era. They include such texts as Kṛṣi-śāstra (Treatise on agriculture), Śilpa-śāstra (Treatise on architecture), Jyotiṣa-śāstra (Treatise on astronomy), Dharma-śāstra (Treatise on law), Caraka-saṃhitā (Caraka's collection), a treatise on medicine, and Artha-śāstra (Treatise on wealth), a treatise on politics."

Gillon, Brendan, "Logic in Classical Indian Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2 ... gic-india/

A. K. Sen (T-H-L)'s description of Tagore (T-H-L)and his school, at which Tagore named him "Amartya", is also worth reading.

[Poetlister]

In reality, India has a much longer tradition of rationalism and analysis than even Greece, a tradition which owes much to Jainism and Islam, etc.

Hm. Jainism was founded around 550 BCE. Islam was founded around 900 AD. The period of classical Greek philosophy is generally regarded as being roughly 450 BCE to 300 BCE. I wasn't aware that there were any Indian Islamic or Jainist time travelling philosophers.

Islam's more like 650. But yes, it's absurd to attribute any aspect of classical Greek culture to Islam.

[Hex]

As an aside, I mentioned Jainism and Islam to emphasize the cosmopolitanism of Indian rationalism, which has sources besides Hindu philosophy.

You have hidden depths, KW. It sounds like you and Mancunium could have much to talk about in this area.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

In reality, India has a much longer tradition of rationalism and analysis than even Greece, a tradition which owes much to Jainism and Islam, etc.

(emboldening added)

Hm. Jainism was founded around 550 BCE. Islam was founded around 900 AD. The period of classical Greek philosophy is generally regarded as being roughly 450 BCE to 300 BCE. I wasn't aware that there were any Indian Islamic or Jainist time travelling philosophers.

Islam's more like 650. But yes, it's absurd to attribute any aspect of classical Greek culture to Islam.

Maybe Wikipediocracy should change the default question for preventing bots from one about a philosopher or socialite to a question requiring reading comprehension, particularly after I clarified the quoted passage before "Poetlister" wrote.

I understand Kelly Martin's misreading, and if I could I'd be happy to simplify the syntax to be easier to read---most of us read these messages when we are tired, during breaks or at the end of long days.

[EricBarbour]

Is any of this leading back to Ullman or homeopathy?

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

A discussion of Enlightenment ideals and of the goals of encyclopedias is relevant to criticisms of Wikipedia.

Perhaps my reading notes are appreciated: Tagore did name Sen "Immortal", after all.

[iii]

Is any of this leading back to Ullman or homeopathy?

I'll try my best.

Ullman famously defected to Citizendium, but left that place some years back. Now he's using the huffpo-bullhorn to try to get some attention. Maybe he got excited by the mild kerfuffles that happened with the Wikipedia criticisms of Sheldrake/Chopra et al.?

Incidentally, there are still a few chiropractors "active" over at Citizendium.

[EricBarbour]

Incidentally, there are still a few chiropractors "active" over at Citizendium.

And that's one reason why, if you ask Gerard about Citizendium, he rages and snarls. Larry just isn't doing it "the Wikipedia way". Everyone is evidently supposed to do it "the Wikipedia way". (Go look at RationalWiki's admin corps, then come back here and tell us about "the Wikipedia way".)

[Poetlister]

Maybe Wikipediocracy should change the default question for preventing bots from one about a philosopher or socialite to a question requiring reading comprehension, particularly after I clarified the quoted passage before "Poetlister" wrote.

I understand Kelly Martin's misreading, and if I could I'd be happy to simplify the syntax to be easier to read---most of us read these messages when we are tired, during breaks or at the end of long days.

"Kiefer": to clarify, I was replying to Kelly rather than to you.

[Cla68]

As an aside, I mentioned Jainism and Islam to emphasize the cosmopolitanism of Indian rationalism, which has sources besides Hindu philosophy.

You have hidden depths, KW. It sounds like you and Mancunium could have much to talk about in this area.

I agree, good discussion. The point I'm trying to make is that the homeopathy article should have ALL sides of the debate about it. It's currently written in a way that promotes one particular POV in WP's voice. One way you can tell if an article has been hijacked by activists is to suggest on the talk page that the topic be described in neutral fashion and that any criticism or pejorative language about it be put at the end of the article instead of inter-weaved into the entire article like homeopathy is currently written so that the reader can decide on their own what is true. If you get a strongly negative reaction by the article's regulars, saying stuff like:

"You just don't understand WP's NPOV policy do you? Why don't you go read it again?"
"We don't leave it up to the reader to decide what is true, we tell them what is true based on the available sources" (invariably, the editors saying this will try to suppress any source which doesn't support their POV, calling it "fringe" or "unreliable")
"That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard"

then you know you're facing a cabal of people who just can't get past their belief that the topic of the article is so dangerous to humanity or outright silly that it has to be discredited by any means possible.

[Peter Damian]

I agree, good discussion. The point I'm trying to make is that the homeopathy article should have ALL sides of the debate about it. It's currently written in a way that promotes one particular POV in WP's voice.

I don't understand. Taking a Flat Earth article as an example, what would count as an article about Flat Earth including ALL sides of the debate about it? And why shouldn't the article be written in a way that promotes one particular POV in WP's voice? The 'one particular view' being in this case the generally accepted 'scientific' view?

The article Earth (T-H-L) merely says "In the past, there were varying levels of belief in a flat Earth, but this was displaced by spherical Earth". There is something about modern flat-earth theory here but it is very much written in a way that promotes the spherical earth view. The article Figure of the Earth (T-H-L) says that “sphere is a close approximation of the true figure of the Earth and satisfactory for many purposes, geodesists have developed a number of models to represent a closer approximation to the shape of the Earth”. There is no mention of ‘ALL points of view here’. Is this the sort of thing you are complaining about? How would you fix it? Should it be fixed, e.g., by allowing people who believe in a flat earth to edit the article?

[Peter Damian]

If you get a strongly negative reaction by the article's regulars, saying stuff like: "We don't leave it up to the reader to decide what is true, we tell them what is true based on the available sources"

Actually this rings true. I once tried to add some material to the global warming page, to explain the reasons behind the global warming theory, and elucidate concepts such as 'forcing', which weren't very well explained and still aren't. I had a correspondence with Connolley, who I have always been on good terms with. He agreed that better explanation was needed and kindly helped me with a draft. However, as soon as I put this material in, there was lot of shrieking from people like Sidaway, who said we shouldn't put explanatory stuff in, and that we should simply say that 'it is totally supported by modern science', with a long list of prominent scientists who have endorsed the theory of AGW. Connolley was sympathetic but said that the article came under such attack that it was impossible to make it better.

My main problem with the 'list of scientists who support X / rubbish X' is that it encourages conspiracy theorists and nitwits. Once you clearly explain the truth, rather than just repeat it, or appeal to authority, you discourage nitwits.

[iii]

My main problem with the 'list of scientists who support X / rubbish X' is that it encourages conspiracy theorists and nitwits. Once you clearly explain the truth, rather than just repeat it, or appeal to authority, you discourage nitwits.

I think there is only one such list left, but I have been so far unsuccessful in getting it deleted in spite it its inanity.

[Peter Damian]

My main problem with the 'list of scientists who support X / rubbish X' is that it encourages conspiracy theorists and nitwits. Once you clearly explain the truth, rather than just repeat it, or appeal to authority, you discourage nitwits.

I think there is only one such list left, but I have been so far unsuccessful in getting it deleted in spite it its inanity.

Well that's fine but in the introduction to Global warming (T-H-L) we have

Scientific understanding of the cause of global warming has been increasing. In its fourth assessment (AR4 2007) of the relevant scientific literature, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that scientists were more than 90% certain that most of global warming was being caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities.[7][8][9] In 2010 that finding was recognized by the national science academies of all major industrialized nations.[10][a]

Appeal to authority.

[Newyorkbrad]

To be faithful to the credible literature, not to mention common sense, pro-homeopathy material should be present in the article at the level of one part per trillion.

[EricBarbour]

To be faithful to the credible literature, not to mention common sense, pro-homeopathy material should be present in the article at the level of one part per trillion.

Instead of posting complaints here, why don't you go back to Wikipedia and assemble a coherent, usable and non-insane policy on the construction and handling of pseudoscience and "alternative culture" content? And then, get your nerdy friends to actually follow it, instead of editwarring for lulz? Unless you enjoy watching the tantrums of Mathsci and Binksternet?

Good luck, Mister Arbcom.

[Notvelty]

My main problem with the 'list of scientists who support X / rubbish X' is that it encourages conspiracy theorists and nitwits. Once you clearly explain the truth, rather than just repeat it, or appeal to authority, you discourage nitwits.

I think there is only one such list left, but I have been so far unsuccessful in getting it deleted in spite it its inanity.

Well that's fine but in the introduction to Global warming (T-H-L) we have

Scientific understanding of the cause of global warming has been increasing. In its fourth assessment (AR4 2007) of the relevant scientific literature, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that scientists were more than 90% certain that most of global warming was being caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities.[7][8][9] In 2010 that finding was recognized by the national science academies of all major industrialized nations.[10][a]

Appeal to authority.

Aren't we up to 5 or 6 now? Wikipedia - always improving.

[Randy from Boise]

To be faithful to the credible literature, not to mention common sense, pro-homeopathy material should be present in the article at the level of one part per trillion.

A very funny post. +1

RfB

[Poetlister]

The article Earth (T-H-L) merely says "In the past, there were varying levels of belief in a flat Earth, but this was displaced by spherical Earth". There is something about modern flat-earth theory here but it is very much written in a way that promotes the spherical earth view. The article Figure of the Earth (T-H-L) says that “sphere is a close approximation of the true figure of the Earth and satisfactory for many purposes, geodesists have developed a number of models to represent a closer approximation to the shape of the Earth”. There is no mention of ‘ALL points of view here’. Is this the sort of thing you are complaining about? How would you fix it? Should it be fixed, e.g., by allowing people who believe in a flat earth to edit the article?

Is there any evidence that the article is owned or patrolled by rabid "round earthers" who are driving away flat earthers? Maybe round earth just isn't as controversial as global warming.

[Cla68]

The article Earth (T-H-L) merely says "In the past, there were varying levels of belief in a flat Earth, but this was displaced by spherical Earth". There is something about modern flat-earth theory here but it is very much written in a way that promotes the spherical earth view. The article Figure of the Earth (T-H-L) says that “sphere is a close approximation of the true figure of the Earth and satisfactory for many purposes, geodesists have developed a number of models to represent a closer approximation to the shape of the Earth”. There is no mention of ‘ALL points of view here’. Is this the sort of thing you are complaining about? How would you fix it? Should it be fixed, e.g., by allowing people who believe in a flat earth to edit the article?

Is there any evidence that the article is owned or patrolled by rabid "round earthers" who are driving away flat earthers? Maybe round earth just isn't as controversial as global warming.

And, as far as I know, there aren't several hundred million people in India following flat-earth science.

[Peter Damian]

To be faithful to the credible literature, not to mention common sense, pro-homeopathy material should be present in the article at the level of one part per trillion.

A very funny post. +1

RfB

I think Zoloft made that same joke here three months ago. Zoloft?

[Peter Damian]

The article Earth (T-H-L) merely says "In the past, there were varying levels of belief in a flat Earth, but this was displaced by spherical Earth". There is something about modern flat-earth theory here but it is very much written in a way that promotes the spherical earth view. The article Figure of the Earth (T-H-L) says that “sphere is a close approximation of the true figure of the Earth and satisfactory for many purposes, geodesists have developed a number of models to represent a closer approximation to the shape of the Earth”. There is no mention of ‘ALL points of view here’. Is this the sort of thing you are complaining about? How would you fix it? Should it be fixed, e.g., by allowing people who believe in a flat earth to edit the article?

Is there any evidence that the article is owned or patrolled by rabid "round earthers" who are driving away flat earthers? Maybe round earth just isn't as controversial as global warming.

My question was why the homeopathy article should have ALL sides of the debate about it, and why it should not be written in a way that promotes one particular POV in WP's voice.

[Zoloft]

To be faithful to the credible literature, not to mention common sense, pro-homeopathy material should be present in the article at the level of one part per trillion.

A very funny post. +1

RfB

I think Zoloft made that same joke here three months ago. Zoloft?

Even last week, some variation. I have a relative who buys homeopathic remedies and is prone to arguing wth me about it.

[iii]

And, as far as I know, there aren't several hundred million people in India following flat-earth science.

Why should we care about as far as you know? It very well may be that most people in the world believe it to be flat (hard to say, there are not a lot of polls available on the topic). Certainly many people in the world (and even the US) are not aware that the Earth goes around the Sun. Ignorance is not scholarship.

[Poetlister]

And, as far as I know, there aren't several hundred million people in India following flat-earth science.

Why should we care about as far as you know? It very well may be that most people in the world believe it to be flat (hard to say, there are not a lot of polls available on the topic). Certainly many people in the world (and even the US) are not aware that the Earth goes around the Sun. Ignorance is not scholarship.

I think the point is that if there are several hundred million people who believe something, chances are that a few of them will turn up on Wikipedia to try and inject their POV.

[iii]

And, as far as I know, there aren't several hundred million people in India following flat-earth science.

Why should we care about as far as you know? It very well may be that most people in the world believe it to be flat (hard to say, there are not a lot of polls available on the topic). Certainly many people in the world (and even the US) are not aware that the Earth goes around the Sun. Ignorance is not scholarship.

I think the point is that if there are several hundred million people who believe something, chances are that a few of them will turn up on Wikipedia to try and inject their POV.

Of course they will! I have interacted with the geocentrists who showed up on Wikipedia, but for some reason that group doesn't inspire as much pity from the concern trolls as the homeopaths (nor does HuffPo give them space to complain).

[Randy from Boise]

To be faithful to the credible literature, not to mention common sense, pro-homeopathy material should be present in the article at the level of one part per trillion.

A very funny post. +1

RfB

I think Zoloft made that same joke here three months ago. Zoloft?

Even last week, some variation. I have a relative who buys homeopathic remedies and is prone to arguing wth me about it.

Please don't waste your time suing Brad for ripping you off without credit... Not much of a tort there...


RfB

[Zoloft]

To be faithful to the credible literature, not to mention common sense, pro-homeopathy material should be present in the article at the level of one part per trillion.

A very funny post. +1

RfB

I think Zoloft made that same joke here three months ago. Zoloft?

Even last week, some variation. I have a relative who buys homeopathic remedies and is prone to arguing wth me about it.

Please don't waste your time suing Brad for ripping you off without credit... Not much of a tort there...


RfB

I'm more into tart than torts.
Anyway, Brad and I both are just harvesting low-hanging fruit of the crackpot tree.

[Randy from Boise]

To be faithful to the credible literature, not to mention common sense, pro-homeopathy material should be present in the article at the level of one part per trillion.

A very funny post. +1

RfB

I think Zoloft made that same joke here three months ago. Zoloft?

Even last week, some variation. I have a relative who buys homeopathic remedies and is prone to arguing wth me about it.

Please don't waste your time suing Brad for ripping you off without credit... Not much of a tort there...


RfB

I'm more into tart than torts.
Anyway, Brad and I both are just harvesting low-hanging fruit of the crackpot tree.

Shouldn't that be "I'm more into tarts than torts"???

RfB