User talk:BullRangifer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Extraordinary wiki suppression mechanisms[edit]

Discussion is here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Here are my thoughts on the matter of suppressing information found in RS which might endanger the lives, in this case, of terrorist captives.

There is a hatted the discussion on Jimbo's talk page. Note that I haven't followed this matter closely, and I haven't even read that thread...yet, because I want to develop some of my thoughts without any influence from such discussions. My thoughts have to do with the concept of "risk/degree of harm" and how notability/publicity is a big factor.

I leave open as a legitimate possibility that, to cause less harm, we sometimes may need to (temporarily) ignore RS and suppress the information here. We are not obligated to immediately use any or all RS which exist, only to use them when we finally do write about a subject. If we choose to temporarily ignore a subject, then we can keep the RS on our own PCs at home. The issue is that most RS related to current events are of a temporary, less notable, nature. They are newspaper and magazine articles. Print media are already gone tomorrow, but on the internet they may remain visible for a short while, and then are archived, often behind a paywall, so many of them do disappear, but not all of them. Those forms of RS coverage have limited notability and thus a limited potential for causing harm.

If we accept that Wikipedia likely has the largest degree of notability on the internet, and that by enshrining these otherwise temporary RS into very notable and high profile articles here, we are greatly increasing the degree of risk/harm, then we are justified in temporarily suppressing coverage of a story which can increase the risk of great harm to individuals.

Wikipedia magnifies and amplifies the influence of RS, and we share the responsibility for consequences. Our articles can increase the likelihood of individuals being used as hostages, or being moved to the front of the line of hostages to next be executed. Their notability and value to kidnappers and terrorists was greatly increased by Wikipedia, and we actually facilitated and hastened their demise! It's a rather sobering thought, and should cause us to take our job seriously. We must consider BLP issues and potential for harm each time we are dealing with such matters.

These principles need to be encoded into policy, likely as an addition to WP:BLP. It needs to be explicit, and not hidden away. For the record, avoiding harm was rejected, including as part of BLP. It's now just an essay. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Because this issue lies at the crossroads of WP:BLP, WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CRIME, and possibly other guidelines and policies, it needs its own name. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Relevant links:

Please comment on Talk:Dental amalgam toxicity[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Dental amalgam toxicity. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Your input about source quality, please[edit]

Hello Brangifer. Thanks for your input in the past; I don't always agree with you but I respect your approach and opinion, so I'm requesting your assistance. Three new Skeptic sources have been added to the Rolfing article; all 3 of these sources only mention the word "Rolfing" once, and only in a long list of alternative medicine topics. In each case, the author is making a blanket complaint about alt-med (though the grouping is quite different in each of the sources), and there is no specific information or criticism about Rolfing provided. The Skeptic's Dictionary is already cited, which is a much better Skeptic source, offering a full page of information and several specific criticisms. I believe these three new sources should be disallowed as they don't add anything about Rolfing. I don't think this will take much of your time, just a quick glance at each source and a few minutes to share your opinion on the article's talk page. Thank you in advance!--Karinpower (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

F. R. Carrick Institute[edit]

What F. R. Carrick is behind the F. R. Carrick Institute if not that one? Many of the people associated with F. R. Carrick Institute are chiropractors. Eaqq (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I checked the other day in connection with Glenn Beck's dubious treatment, and it seemed to be a different organization, but if they really are the same, then a merge should be done. That means tagging, discussing, and waiting. We can't place an article in the chiropractic category when the article doesn't even mention chiropractic. That angle needs to be developed first. If you can document it, then go for it. If that happens, we can include mention of Glenn Beck and the criticisms from many mainstream scientists, including of Carrick's dubious credentials. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I believe that it is connected to Frederick Carrick (the Glenn Beck chiropractor) but can't find reliable sources. It has a mailing address in Gilbert, Arizona and the director is Gerald "Gerry" Leisman who claims to have a "PhD in Neuroscience and Biomedical Engineering" from an online university (Union Institute & University) and worked at New York Chiropractic College and was punished by the National Institutes of Health in 1994 for lying about his credentials; claiming to be medical doctor with an MD from a UK university and is associated with chiropractor Robert Melillo who says he (Mellilo) is "board certified in Chiropractic Neurology and is the former chairman of the American Board of Chiropractic Neurology" and is the founder of the Brain Balance Centers and "an associate professor of clinical neurology and childhood behavioral disorders at The Carrick Institute, in FL". Frederick Carrick (the Glenn Beck one) definitely is the founder of The Carrick Institute in Florida. I haven't found adequate sources for the F.R. Carrick Institute because it doesn't seem to be legitimate. Eaqq (talk) 09:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
"Curiouser and curiouser!" cried Alice. That article has been here since 2007, written as an autobiographical puff piece, and it's about time it gets picked apart and totally revamped. Every edit at Wikipedia made by the author(s) needs to be checked and likely undone. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
One of the sources for the Frederick Carrick Wikipedia article is:
Gerry Leisman, Robert Melillo, Sharon Thum, Mark A Ransom, Michael Orlando, Christopher Tice, Frederick R Carrick (March 2011). "The effect of hemisphere specific remediation strategies on the academic performance outcome of children with ADD/ADHD". International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health 22 (2). Retrieved 22 February 2014. Eaqq (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Here are his PubMed listings. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I probably won't attach my email address to my Wikipedia account. It's too deep of a commitment :) Eaqq (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
The alternative of saying some things here can be even more of a commitment and liability! I use a throwaway account created only for Wikipedia. You can do that. I have suggestions. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Opposition to immigration[edit]

I've replyed to your comment at the discussion page for opposition to immigration. - Olehal09 (talk) 22:15, November 23, 2014‎ (UTC)

Thanks. Meet you there! -- Brangifer (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


Regarding the "Black salve" wiki page, you need to explain how this sentence is scientific and proven:

"The effectiveness of escharotics is unproven, and much safer and more effective alternatives exist, such as radiation therapy and Mohs surgery"

This statement is self- contradictory. It is unproven how effective echarotics is, and it may be dangerous, but its never been compared to conventional cancer treatment. Even so, you will insist that its safer and more effective with radiation therapy and Mohs surgery. I would love to see your data from research on the comparison between the use of Black salve, radiation therapy and Mohs surgery.

One of the side effects of radiation therapy:


"Radiation therapy to the brain can cause problems months or years after treatment ends. Side effects can include memory loss, problems doing math, movement problems, incontinence, trouble thinking, or personality changes. Sometimes, dead tumor cells can form a mass in the brain, which is called radiation necrosis."

Necrosis is a severe side effect, its lethal and is only one of many you can get from radiation therapy.

Surgey in and of it self can, in worst case, cause death. Even simple procedures do, on rare occasions.

Wikipedia is not a battle ground. Its an online dictionary and should be kept as such. I dont care if Black salve works or not, but I do care that unproven claims like the one you insist on having up there, gets by without having a citation to an actual study on Black salve vs conventional cancer treatment and which one is safer and/or more effective.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yngvegil (talkcontribs) 19:51, November 24, 2014‎ (UTC)

Our content is based on the reliable sources used. I have made several changes which hopefully improve the content in that article. You say that this is not a battleground, and yet you bring ideological accusations against proven mainstream methods, thus using Wikipedia as a battlefield for promotion of the discredited fringe POV found in alternative medicine circles and dubious websites like NaturalNews and No one denies that side effects exist, but skin cancers are often very deadly, so strong measures must be used, and that very quickly. Eva Cassidy is a notable victim of melanoma. Read the lead of that article, and also check out the success rates for Mohs surgery. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Review request....[edit]

Having noticed your interest in the medical field, I was hoping you would review Gabor B. Racz. It received some attention as a DYK, readily passed the criteria, so I nominated it for GA back in July. I know there is quite a backlog, and it appears medical articles tend to end up at the bottom of the heap. In the interim, I figured it probably wouldn't hurt for another set of eyeballs to give it a look-see. 11:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Oops, forgot my sig AtsmeConsult 12:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring[edit]

Hello BullRangifer, I removed the criminal charges from the lead of Jian Ghomeshi after reading the request at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard that said too much information about the criminal charges was inserted outside its section. To me its clear that WP:BLPCRIME states that criminal charges should be dealt with extra care because of the repercussions that they can have to the subject. That is why I removed it from the lead, keeping in mind that the information is included and explained in detail in the proper section, as I explained in the talk. After that initial edit, I have only done one reversion, my last edit in the page, I also explained the reasons for why I did the reversion in the talk page. You yourself reverted me without any explanation in the talk page. That is fine, but the edit warring template is totally uncalled for, since I only did one reversion, and I did it following policy trying to improve the article, and posting the reasoning in the talk page. I will leave this issue on the hands of the big boys since I can see that there are enough experienced eyes on the matter,I could do it myself, but as a sign of good faith I ask you to remove the edit warring template from my talk page as I think it is undeserved.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, as you know, a deviation from BRD is an act of edit warring, and I wanted to stop it from continuing. Discussion is the way to determine the matter. BLP is being followed because it's all properly sourced content, and LEAD is followed because it is significant enough for short mention in the lead. I'm sure that this can all be worked out, but edit warring is not the way to do it. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the information should clearly be in the article, My interpretation is that it would be best to wait for conviction before including in the LEAD to address WP:BLPCRIME concerns, but I may be wrong, what I fully agree with is that the best course is discussion and consensus.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2014[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Climate engineering[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Climate engineering. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)