User talk:Orangemarlin

* Click here to leave me a new message

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Watching Anti-Science POV admin candidates

• None for now.

Articles on Quackademic Medicine

Below are articles articles, mostly medical but some in the sciences, that promote ideas or POV's that might endanger human life. Feel free to add your own, but I'm watching and cleaning up these articles. Please sign if you add something.

• List of medicinal herbs-lacks any references, and implies these drugs can help.Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

comment But they do help, in the field (that is, in the absence of hospitals). If you are a hiker, or a soldier, it can be good to know that garlic is antibiotic; better than just sitting down and dying from a superficial wound because a hospital with penicillin is too far away. So, are you objecting to bad editting (unsourced items) and not to a bad article (which is how this list sounds)? What I mean is that it is not the article which endangers human life, but bad edits to the article; so you contribute to them, that's good. But it's not the article's fault. Pete St.John (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Well, if you're a hiker, I doubt you're going to have access to Wikipedia, but I understand your point. Some drugs have come from plants, that's a well-known fact. But how much garlic is needed to be an antibiotic? Is it really an anti-biotic? I keep these articles listed here for me as a reminder to edit them, and for others who come to my page to find articles to edit. And yes, they all need upgrading, because the Anti-Science POV warriors add cruft based on one unreliable article. It's hard work though. Want to join in? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No; I do math, computing, and whichever incidental articles bear-trap my feet with undamped resonance from hostile arguement. Pete St.John (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Herbalism-same as above Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Homeopathy-ridiculous Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Attachment therapy-don't let your children go there Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC) This has been rewritten since User:AWeidman (Dr Becker-Weidman) and his 6 socks were indef banned. Fainites ^barley 16:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Medicinal plants of the American West-more unsourced POV edits Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Alternative medicine-more of the same Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Naturopathic medicine-Actually not completely off the wall, but some parts are bad. Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Er, Duesberg hypothesis and poppers could both use more work, and talk about endangering lives... especially the former. MastCell ^Talk 18:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• I'd also add ephedra to the list... I did a lot of work cleaning it up and it's not so bad anymore (it actually references the serious harms and deaths associated with ephedra supplements in a way that goes beyond referring to the FDA as jackbooted thugs, now). But much of the same material is duplicated in ECA stack, which I haven't been as successful with, and which I fear gives an erroneous impression as to the safety record of ephedra-containing dietary supplements. MastCell ^Talk 19:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Arguably, Reflexology, though that's probably not actually dangerous, just ridiculously oversold. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Vaccine controversy. Anti-vaxers are really dangerous. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Hulda Clark. A dangerous scam. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Gary Null. Advocates nonsense. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Joseph Mercola. Advocates nonsense and repeated run ins with the FTC. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• rebirthing, reparenting, Power therapies. Primal Scream therapy. I would treat Neurolinguistic Programming as the main hub for many of them though. Its a subject that seems to be the main pseudoscientific umbrella that is used by most of them to give the false impression of scientific appearance. Its incredibly widespread and extremely misleading to the less scientifically literate. Here is a good source; [1]. Phloem (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

anyone who wants to work on this complex of article, I'll be glad to help. Time we got to the pseudo-psychology. DGG (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• coral calcium. I just put in some references, but there is a lot more that can be done. That someone would think that coral calcium can be used as a panacea for all types of cancer when in fact excess calcium can, in some cases, be detrimental to certain cancer treatments means that we should be very careful how the claims of the coral calcium fanatics are treated. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Medical articles

Below are articles that I believe, along with any trusted science and medicine editors who may wish to contribute, meet the simple test of being well-written, do not give undue weight to fringe theories, and are either WP:GA or WP:FA:

No more editing without citation

I apologize for editing without following the proper citations, I thought it was sufficient to say it was unproven.24.65.87.238 (talk) 20:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Diatribe?

Dear Mr Marlin.....

NEUTRALITY is my purpose entire......

I repeat, purely for your benefit....

Your page on the Waffen SS is out of date.... Your information on this page is from sources that have no neutrality... Not one German source is quoted, and this page purports to be an encyclopedia! It's as if I tried to sit down and write a capsule history of the British Army using French Russian texts, and ignoring the British point of view....

If you wish to see my comments as a diatribe,and must point to Wiki's neutrlity as your defense, then that puts you in the catgory of the ill-informed, much as the person/people who wrote this non-sense....

The truth of World War 2 will probably have to wait for a time when distance has been achieved, all the veterans and sons of veterans are dead, and we can take a cold, hard look at that which is left over.....

End of sermon........You have offered nothing in reply, prooving my view that Wiki is another source in English that wishes to simply gloss over the facts to please veterans and governments for their own cause...

Thankyou..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christofurry (talk • contribs) 02:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Omaha beach edit "not constructive"????

Look pal...........

If you simply want to read military history that goes through the motions and is simply a rehash of "official" histories, then I sugesst you make it plain for the contributors....

Not constructive?....Charles Corlett was ignored, and Omar Bradley made a hash of it, costing american lives at the expense of shoddy planning...PERIOD. What is "not constructive" about that/....Perfectly esay to understand....Mind you, you certainly won't find this in ol'Omar's memoirs.... I think the attitiude of wiki to changes is appalling.....So, if we all don't follow the "official" line, we are incorrect?.....Williamson Murray is a contributing source that makes sence....Wiki is just a bunch of people mouthing the official histories!!!!

Looks like my assumption of history as was correct after all....we will have to wait for all the priciple protagonists, and their sons and daughters, to dissappear from this mortal coil before we get anything approaching the truth...having worked on this change and given you a more than reputable source, you tag it as NON CONSTRUCTIVE....

I certainly won't be consulting Wiki for military matters in the furture. I don't think reputable historians will either...thanks for wasting my time.