Talk:Royal Rife

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2015

Please change the word "mentioned" to "featured" in the following sentence: "Subsequently, one of Rife's microscopes was mentioned in the 1944 Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution." Pragmath (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: The Universal Microscope is covered in 8.3 pages of the annual report, as part of a 26 page article on "The new microscopes" in an annual report of 576 pages - IMHO this is more than a "mention" but at <1.5% does not constitute it being "featured" - perhaps you could suggest an alternative word, "covered" ? "discussed" ? - Arjayay (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You are correct Arjayjay, the word "featured" would not be justified. Upon further reflection... I suggest "detailed". The article in question is relatively in-depth and technical in nature. - Pragmath (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done I've taken the liberty to change your proposal slightly, to "details of one of Rife's microscopes were included in ..." if you are unhappy, please come back, - Arjayay (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

If one has truly read the Smithsonian piece and considers the nuance between the two terms, i.e. "detailed" vs "details", they would in fairness tip the scales in your direction here. Best regards Pragmath (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Please remove the word "ultimately" from the following sentence: "Rife's work and claims were ultimately discredited by the medical community". Rife's work, his exact work, using his equipment/procedures, has never to date been investigated with any rigor by any more than just a handful of physicians. Pragmath (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: I don't see the difference between using ultimately and not using it - either way the sentence says that he was discredited. Cannolis (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The use of the word "ultimately" in this case would infer that his methods and equipment were discredited after a lengthy series of tests had been conducted in order to make such a judgment. From everything that I have read it would appear that this is not the case. He was labeled a fraud by a few influential individuals such as Dr. Thomas Rivers - who refused to look through Rife's microscope. River's behavior was/is, from what I have been able to glean, a characteristic common to Rife detractors. Pragmath (talk) 06:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The section about Rife's devices from the ACS source already cited in the article is sufficient to that his claims were discredited. I am unsure as to how much testing was done on the devices, as the principles behind their purported function clash with science as we know it.

I don't get the same implication from the usage of ultimately as you do, but I do not mind removing the word if you are dead set on that. Personally, when I read it with "ultimately" it sounds like there was some debate, when it seems the scientific community rather wholeheartedly rejected the claims. Cannolis (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The ACS article doesn't seem to say much other than that Rife's methods, to their knowledge, could not have worked. Yes, you're correct in that the word "ultimately", used in the context in question, intimates that a debate had occurred before Rife became a name not to be mentioned in scientific circles. Would it have been fair to discredit Rife's instruments and methods before he was given the chance to demonstrate them? That, it appears, is what transpired. Rife was denied, rather than discredited. Yes, I'd appreciate it if you would remove the word. Thank you, Pragmath (talk) 11:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The following sentence appears in the next to last section, forth paragraph: "Rife's work and claims were ultimately discredited by the medical community, a result which Rife blamed on powerful conspiracies against him." That aspect of the story however had already been laid out in the first section, second paragraph: "Rife's claims could not be independently replicated,[5] and were discredited by the medical profession in the 1950s. Rife blamed the scientific rejection of his claims on a conspiracy involving the American Medical Association (AMA), the Department of Public Health, and other elements of "organized medicine", which had "brainwashed" potential supporters of his devices".[6] In my opinion this repetition smacks of bias and as such I propose that the sentence (in the next to last section, forth paragraph) be removed. Pragmath (talk) 07:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done the lead section is meant to be a synopsis of the rest of the article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The sentence which follows (first section, second paragraph)can too easily be misleading: "Rife's claims could not be independently replicated... " To date, I've read nothing published in the peer reviewed journals that could be construed as conclusive either way. I propose that, to be fair, in the sentence in question that the words "could not be" be replaced with the words "have not been". Pragmath (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like asking them to prove a negative. Stickee (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Kharkiv07^Talk 01:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Re-instatement of footnote link to photocopy of Rife's newspaper obituary

On 16.12.2013 the link was removed from footnote 6 which refers to the obituary by Del Hood in the Daily Californian, with the remark: (rm link to site which clearly fails all sourcing criteria).

According to WP guidelines: "A convenience link is a link to a copy of your source on a webpage provided by someone other than the original publisher or author. For example, a copy of a newspaper article no longer available on the newspaper's website may be hosted elsewhere...."

It seems useful to have the external link, so that readers/editors can verify the authenticity of the source quoted from.

The link which was removed on 16.12.2013 led to a page with the incomplete photocopy displayed (the bottom paragraphs are cut off). The link I am instating leads to a full page photocopy of the entire article within the same website.

Parsonage1 (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course this article is locked

It's about an alternative cure for cancer...and that couldn't be true could it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.51.163 (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you wikipedia for ending the gang stalking on this article.

For the longest time this article had been hounded by psudeoskeptics and general nare do wells stiffling sourced information and instituting blanket censorship... the new direction of this article is great, keep up the good work and stay on guard against those wiki gangs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.179.132.112 (talk) 02:34, 19:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Minor edit request to remove cite note

Please remove the citation note 5 from the first paragraph of the article in the statement: "Rife's claims could not be independently replicated,[5]" Requesting this because the source does not support the statement. Manofstoke (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The source does say that. Stickee (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Really?

I believe that using a link to "conspiracy theory" is totally unfounded. Also, one of the sources is... "The Daily Californian (or Daily Cal) is an independent, student-run newspaper that serves the University of California, Berkeley campus and its surrounding community. How on earth is a Student newspaper a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orasis (talk • contribs) 08:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

That Rife's supporters allege a conspiracy (i.e. a conspiracy theory) to suppress Rife's work seems to be supported by cites to CA Cancer J Clin (a peer-reviewed journal that aims to provide clinicians with information about cancer therapy) in addition to the Daily Cal obit. As far as I can tell, even strongly pro-Rife sources like the Lynes book The Cancer Cure That Worked vociferously claims a conspiracy by the AMA and others to suppress Rife's work.

There seems to be ample evidence that a conspiracy is claimed; so there's no basis to remove the description of conspiracy theories as such on that basis. Are you arguing that the term (or link to) "conspiracy theory" is problematic because you would like to argue that there actually is/was a genuine conspiracy to suppress Rife's work? If you want to take that tack, then you will need to present robust and reliable sources (as good or better than the ones already present in the article) which support that assertion.

With respect to the Daily Cal obit, do you have a specific objection to any of the content which is attributed to it? At the time of Rife's death, his work was long-rejected by the scientific community, and he just wasn't seen as an important or credible figure; few independent news outlets would have bothered to run a substantial obituary. Again, if you can find more robust sources which refute any of the material solely supported by the Daily Cal obit, by all means bring them forward.

Finally, you slapped a {npov} template on the article page. Can you be specific about what aspects of the article's neutrality you wish to dispute? Aside from not liking the article's content, can you describe specifically what is non-neutral and inadequately supported by the available sources (and provide good-quality, independent sources to support any changes you would like to make)? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)