Talk:Royal Rife

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)

Source

"The Daily Californian (or Daily Cal) is an independent, student-run newspaper (Wikipedia)." A student run newspaper is not a source. If his theories and claims were discredited, we need an actual source. If not, it will remain NPOV. Orasis (talk)

1. The issue has not been resolved. 2. The NPOV has been made clear, very clear. 3. It has not, the discussion that is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orasis (talk • contribs) 07:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with that: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 134#The Harvard Crimson at John Harvard statue. Stickee (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Weasel words

Does a cure for cancer exist? Yes, or no? If not... this article is using weasel words in one instance. Chemotherapy has not shown to cure cancer anymore than any other 'cure'. Yes, or no? Unless Chemotherapy has been shown to be a cure for cancer, which it has not, that paragraph contains 'weasel words'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orasis (talk • contribs) 07:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not clear what you're objecting to here. What specific wording from the article do you find problematic? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

"This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:"

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant."

1. There is no consensus. 2. It is clear. No satisfactory explanation has been given. No sources either. 3. Discussion is lively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orasis (talk • contribs)

An extensive response was given here. Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it not "satisfactory". Stickee (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It might be worth Orasis reading Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans - although only an essay, it includes Jimmy Wales endorsement of the NPOV policy on pseudoscience and the policy on fringe science - Arjayay (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

TRUTH of diversity

There has been as much death or more from Chemotherapy, as there has been in the Royal Rife application . to ignore this is to ignore any reach for the answer to the cure.