Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/TheNautilus

Reply to Ncmvocalist

Ncmvocalist would throw out all evidence of content from this dispute. However, WP:NPOV (including WP:UNDUE), WP:NOR, and WP:V are all core policies. To say that core policies cannot be discussed at RfC is nonsense. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't understand how Wikipedia works in relation to dispute resolution, so I'll make it clearer for you.

Those core policies you mention are content policies - disputes over article content, including disputes over how best to follow the neutral point of view policy, belong in an Article RfC. This is a request for comment on user conduct, and involves conduct policies like WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:EDITWAR etc. Please follow due process. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that this isn't about interpretation of policy, but Nautilus's refusal to understand and use policy, which is very much a conduct issue. Jefffire (talk) 12:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

We can't determine if he's complying with content policy - it would involve making a finding on content. But, if there is a clear lack of understanding of policy, or clear disregard for policy, then it is within the scope of this Rfc. An example is if he said something like "I don't care...I'm adding this content because it's the truth". Unfortunately, where it's not completely clear like that example, it falls in the scope of Article RFC.

But, if he engages in edit-warring, particularly where consensus is against him, this will be within the scope of this RfC, and he probably will end up being sanctioned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel your statement that core policies, being content issues, should be considered unenforcable by any admin or user action is utter nonsense. Core policies have to be supportable to have any effect.

I also do not think that you should have moved my view to the talk page. I don't think it's any less meta-discussion than your view, which also does not comment on Nautilus, but is a metacomment on TimVickers' discussion. It also means that only your view could be voted upon, which could result in a false view of the support, as there's no "oppose" votes on an RfC. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to 'feel' however you wish; it won't change the fact how things are done here - the arbitration committee does not approve or allow for administrators to make rulings on content (which is what you're suggesting they do in enforcing the content policies of this Rfc).

You clearly have not read through my Outside view properly if you think it does not comment on Nautilus, so I suggest you do so - hint: I refer to him as the subject of this Rfc. Your view was moved because replies to other views go on the talk page - this is not some sort of RFA or workshop where you make support or oppose votes, it is an Rfc asking for third party input on how the dispute appears to uninvolved editors, and what parties should do to try to resolve it. So even in the case you made a view on the case (unlike the reply to the view), it would've still been moved/removed because there is evidence you're involved in the dispute to be an 'outside view'. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I find this line of reasoning a bit odd. "We can't determine if he's complying with content policy - it would involve making a finding on content"? Yes, WP:V and WP:NOR are content policies, but repeated refusal to respect them is a conduct issue. Admins can, and do, take action against editors who routinely or flagrantly disregard these content policies. This is not a comment on I'clast/TN - I'm reserving judgement there for now - but I do think the hairsplitting over "due process" in this thread is a bit misguided. People can, of course, incorporate a judgement on the sources/content used by I'clast as part of their evaluation of his conduct, just as they can decide not to if they feel it's neither here nor there. MastCell ^Talk 19:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read what I said above that (12.27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)) - I've covered that exception there. If there is a clear disregard/disrespect/repeated-refusal to follow policy, is a conduct issue - but there is a clear separation between RfcU and Article RFC, so content and conduct are treated separately. It is a conduct issue where edit-warring occurs (particularly against consensus) or where there is a clear disregard for consensus or policy. But we don't say that he's violated eg; WP:V in using a source, just because a group of editors directly involved in the dispute feel that it doesn't, nor can admin action be taken on that basis. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, in practice the separation between an article RfC and a user-conduct RfC is often a bit blurry, and by no means as sharp as you make it out to be. Certainly in this case a series of issues involving one editor have arisen, so I don't see process wonkery as being particularly useful. Additionally, it's completely inappropriate to remove other users' views from the RfC page. The very first sentence of WP:RfC reads: "All editors (including anonymous or IP users) are welcome to provide comment or opinion, and to assist in reaching agreements, by responding to requests for comment." Please stop moving views to the talk page or re-labeling them because you, personally, find the editor in question to be "involved". MastCell ^Talk 17:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I've broadened the scope of the RfC a great deal since Ncmvocalist made that comment, initially it focussed on the problems in one article, so could have been seen as a dispute over a single content issue. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been hampered here by the fact that I'clast only uses this account to edit a small number of articles. Therefore problems with his behaviour are limited, in this account, to these articles. I think it will be useful to invite people who are familiar with the main account to comment in this RfC, to see if this is a general problem with this editor, or if TheNautilus is simply being used as a "bad-hand" account. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Remember, policies apply per person, not account - see WP:SOCK. Therefore it would be an Rfc on both accounts. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking over I'clast's edits, they seem to show a much better understanding of policy (see the edits of Gillian McKeith for example). I'm starting to think that the problem isn't a lack of understanding, but the use of an account where I'clast feels free to ignore Wikipedia policies. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't ignore policies, I integrate them for difficult situations in highly controversial articles that tend to reflect & use unreliable sources such as the ubiquitous (self proclaimed) "mainstream" (pseudoskeptical) sources. But Tim's edits often ignore mine in ways that repeatedly suggest self-assured ignorance, lack of AGF, lack of reading for comprehension, and/or significant (non-scientific) bias.--TheNautilus (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a possible explanation for the difference. It could be a reflexion of how wed he is to his views on chiropractic or orthomed. He is nearly religious about orthomed, and that can make (any)one suspend disbelief and enter a woo woo land where reasoning becomes distorted and fails to follow accepted norms and rules, including wiki policies. -- Fyslee / talk 05:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee, I am not "chiro-" anything, you should know that by now. Your statements are devoid of merit on simple chemistry matters and recognizing when scientific methodology and practices being honored in the breach, again and again. I am being the straight man in a funny farm that othewise wants to use somewhat popular, unreliable 2nd, 3rd... hand media instead of actually researching the (mainstream) literature to see what the actual researchers published. You usually assume certain unreliable sources are correct about OMM, I have to remind you that they are totally disconnected here & demonstrably misrepresentative on their assertions about orthomed. Published positions that are confirmed by multiple papers out of NIH-PNAS-CMAJ & Cochrane author, Hemila, in *this* millenium as well as various mainstreams copying & approving OMM treatments^{e.g. niacin, fish oil, folate}. By the way, Canadian Pediatric Society's new recommendation of vitamin D is a megadose that corresponds roughly to orthmed's recommendation 20+ yrs ago.--TheNautilus (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If this is the case then you should simply produce the sources and we can judge them. And yes, this is clearly a content issue. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 16:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

They are already in the article and Talk archives so much that I am criticized for repetition and *too many* references, as well if skeptical editors don't keep "accidentally deleting" some mainstream ones I've postedTJ e.g. Menalascino et al(1988), one of the most extensive *accurate* mainstream critques of OMM that I have seen, keeps disappearing.

Also there is "skeptical" OR that resists being identified with sources, e.g. misidentifying "broad conventional and alternative nutrition" as (primarily) OMM with high WEIGHT in the lead[1].--TheNautilus (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Since the only sources that could refute the fact that people have made a particular criticism would be a statement denying that they've said this, it doesn't appear to me that you've quite grasped the issue ImpIn. The NPOV policy requires that we state facts. These criticisms are in reliable, notable sources and the fact that they have been made is noted in this article. This is one of the most important provisions of the NPOV policy - you state opinions not as facts in themselves, but instead you report the fact that some people have these opinions. Please understand that reporting this fact is not the same as agreeing with the criticisms, and isn't something that can be rebutted with alternative sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Tim, it seems clear that TheNautilus is saying that mainstream organizations have since reversed their positions on these treatments. Do you not see that? I quote from his statement above: "Published positions that are confirmed by multiple papers out of NIH-PNAS-CMAJ & Cochrane author, Hemila, in *this* millenium as well as various mainstreams copying & approving OMM treatments." If this is the case, then these newer positions would outweigh the older positions that you've cited, and would either replace your citations or be cited directly after your older positions. How am I missing the point? ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 18:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If that were true, then it would certainly be worth reporting, but the NIH and the Cochrane collaboration have not endorsed orthomolecular medicine. Some people are proponents of it, and I think (although his comment isn't very clear) that TheNautilus is referring to a scientist called Hemila who was an author in reviews such as PMID 17636648, PMID 18279551, PMID 16034908 and PMID 18425960, or this letter to AJCN. As you will see by reading these abstracts, these reviews certainly do not support for the idea of using vitamins as general treatments for diseases. Once again, I think this is a case of TheNautilus distorting and over-stating his sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Tim, your edits imply a matter of a lack of attention time, AGF, and/or scientific objectivity to look, read and/or comprehend closely enough at OMM Talk to recognize what has changed. I have stated the positions at length plenty of times to fill others' background information gap,^{2008200820082006}, summarized here as "NIH-PNAS-CMAJ papers" or "Hemila...". Reading works wonders. To wit:

(1) The 1999-2007 NIH-PNAS-CMAJ^{1999200020012001200320042005200520062007} papers clearly reverse position on statements like "Moertel disproved Pauling & vitamin C on cancer", so Cancer Medicine's 6th ed version is WP:V wrong, perhaps just obsolete material from earlier editions. These papers clearly state that Moertel's failure to include IV vitamin C treatments like Pauling & Cameron at 10g to 40g/day for ~14 days was a *very* significant error, among the half dozen or so identified by Pauling, rendering Moertel's (fraudulent) misrepresentations (slightly) publicly visible, finally. The NIH-PNAS-CMAJ papers' data further show that the orthomolecular IV range, say 30 g to 200+grams C each time, with rapid infusion, are plausible cytocidal agents for many cancers, where OMM also talks about amelioration or control of symptoms, life extension, and quality of life with continued treatment, rather than "cure". So that the Moertel "disproved C" generalization is rendered even more egregious. OMM says IV vitamin C works better with adjuvants, and some of the Riordan data preliminary to co-authoring some NIH papers demonstrates plausibility.

(2) In a series of papers, from ca 1991-2006, Hemila shows that virtually all of the common public statements that have come to be accepted as popular "skeptic" & "mainstream" truisms on vitamin C & respiratory disease suffer numerous serious errors, bias & abuse that negate their validity, including the nominal basis of Pauling/OMM critics. Totally changes the picture. Especially assertions that there is no benefit, where Hemila's exhaustive compilation of dbRCT trials and *carefully accurate* (re-) meta-analyses show an upward trend with dose, although still about 2-3 orders of magnitude below the orthomolecular treatment ranges. Linear extrapolation for dose/frequency/duration would begin to look something like OMM claims. OMM advocates heavily criticize Hemila for stopping short of addressing the OMM range beyond the dbRCT data, but with that PhD, MD, PhD, he seems either too saavy to proceed without a big (lifetime sized) grant or to risk a McCarthy-like witch hunt.--TheNautilus (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend people interested in this topic to read the links I provided above and compare them to I'clast's interpretation of the same data. The comparison is a very instructive one. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked for I'clast diffs, didn't find them. It is confusing and distracting when you gratuitously switch the User addressed.--TheNautilus (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't really understand you, TheNautilus. You need to point to your sources, not the OM talk page. Just put a plain list of external links like Tim did. Tim's abstracts show that an author named Hemila appears extremely skeptical of OM. When you're trying to debate on Wikipedia, it's best to condense down to your most powerful points. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 18:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The pointers to Talk show they have been discussed repeatedly and not read or understood by Tim.

I didn't say that Hemila was an orthomolecular advocate, he has published a number of points that give support to or coincide with orthomolecular positions and demolished the position of OMM critics. For starters, the Cochrane review's position on stressed bodies' benefits from extra C mirrors the studies from those identified by Pauling 40 years ago as dbRCT that showed positive benefits. The primary difference with Pauling's original result is the recognition these studies of young highly active, cold stressed bodies still represented a special population. In comparison Hemila and Douglas are finding *some* slight benefit at these-much-lower-than-OMM-doses that were totally dismissed by critics. Hemila notes "studies on the therapeutic use of high doses of 4 grams and 8 grams on the day of the onset of respiratory symptoms are tantalizing and deserve further assessment." 4 grams per day + 8 grams once only of vitamin C (during a week or so of illness) just about covers the first 20 seconds of OMM's common cold practices, everybody still apparently waiting on "further assessment" funding though.

The Cochrane Collections papers are medical reference papers that only accept a very high, very expensive standard of demonstration, at least several dbRCT with separation of the 95% confidence interval with treatment and without treatment for the specified population (often the whole population, where individualization and specific population are more toward OMM). Let's call that accepted (FDA/allopathic) medicine with Class I evidence. Anything less certain, aka "unsubstantiated", but scientifically plausible or even highly likely, is still in the "science" or clinical development category. This one is of the beefs with the instant flights of rhetoric from "inadequately substantiated" or (medically) "unproven" to "quack", "-ery", imprecise ridicule and ad hominem so commonly the hallmark of much the less reliable discussions and sources.

Example: In one of Tim's implied "refutation examples" above, PMID 18425960, "Vitamin C for preventing and treating tetanus," Hemila says 1g IV vitamin C for tetanus has not been established, with suitable data to the levels of strict evidence based medicine (with FDA style dbRCTs), to accept it as an established medical treatment because if the lack of dbRCTs. OMM accepts that, fine it is not studied-to-death to class I evidence, where OMM does have substantial experience in the 30 - 100 grams IV C per day range for safety issues. However Hemila does accept one RCT study of 62 cases as preliminary evidence that shows 100% of children under age 13 survived, tetanus when 1g IV vitamin C was added to their treatment. In this Cochrane accepted study, 74.2% of children died without IV vitamin C with otherwise the same tetanus therapy. "However, concerns about trial quality mean that this result must be interpreted with caution and vitamin C cannot be recommended as a treatment for tetanus on the basis of this evidence. New trials should be carried out to examine the effect of vitamin C on tetanus treatment."

Jungeblut first reported tetanus neutralization in the 1930s in vitro with lower concentrations, but failed to make the connection to high enough doses. OMM's Klenner didn't wait around extra decades for Cochrane and reported great success with very high IV C doses (dozens of grams) in the 1950s. In the 1980's trial, above, success with 1 gram IV reported, noted in Cochrane. These facts reflects the very real tensions of *science* and the different medical approaches in practice including OMM, not just QW fantasy.--TheNautilus (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

So you see ImperfectlyInformed, it's not the case that medicine and science now accepts this form of alternative medicine. Instead it continues to see it as "unproven at best". Similar examples of I'clast distorting and over-stating his sources abound, which is why he is such a difficult editor to deal with. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's try to stick to encyclopedically describing the situation rather bashing at OMM (& me) with the QW 'tudes, please.--TheNautilus (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppeting

Does TheNautilus have two accounts? Has a check user been performed? Has sockpuppeting been admitted and justified by some condition in WP:SOCK? WLU (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

He appears to admit this here, although he later refers to I'clast in the third person. This was raised previously here and I'clast made a reference to it being something to do with "stalking and trolling", but again made no clear statement about it. I haven't pursued this further since I'm an involved party. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I have left questions here and here, hopefully this will clear things up. WLU (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Among editors who have edited closely with him on the same articles, there is little doubt that we are dealing with the same person. For some reason he has chosen to use different user names for editing different accounts. It's as if he edits as a chiropractor when using I'clast and as a naturopath (or something like that) when editing orthomed related articles. Since mixer chiropractors practice like naturopaths that could explain the interest in both subjects. -- Fyslee / talk 06:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I have received equivocal responses from both accounts and followed up. Should I not receive an explicit yes or no, I will start looking into a check user request. Irrespective of conduct, editing habits or anything else, there are legitimate and illegitimate uses of multiple accounts; illegitimate uses should cease. If s/he/they were unaware, then one account should cease to be used, immediately. If this is an effort to avoid scrutiny, it should be dealt with accordingly. WLU (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(bing-zip)Given the surprising, if not down-right stupid statement in WP:SOCK#LEGIT, #1, apparently this is OK so long as the twain ne'er meet. Which, as cases of tendentious editing will almost certainly lead to WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY problems, seems dumb. But as long as TheNautalis and I'clast never edit the same page, talk page, user page, or otherwise, I guess this is OK. But the accounts should be tagged as alts. WLU (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Outing other editors

I've asked JoshuaZ to clarify what happened here, since he seems to have dealt with this. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrators

Administrators are entirely able to use content. Arbcom members have specifically said so:

“ ...The discretionary sanctions basically push the responsibility for sorting these out to the administrators, who have no prohibition on using content in their decisions... (Kirill 17:53, 14 April 2008) ”

Hence, we may look at both TheNautilus' content and behavioural issues, and judge them on their merits, following the core policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. Repeated violations of core policies are a problem, and, while good faith should be presumed, repeated and consistent violation of these, when aware of the policies, are also highly disruptive to our core purpose of building an encyclopedia, and must be dealt with. Users who endorse this summary:

1. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Ronz (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Please take care not to engage in misrepresentation - you are not outside of this dispute, and your quote was particular to discretionary sanctions. Administrators do not make content decisions. See below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

“ The Arbitration Committee is looking for a way to address the issue in a broader way that does not tamper with the idea that administrators DO NOT make content decisions. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC) ”

UYou are the one misrepresenting things: WP:BLOCK says that "persistently violating other policies or guidelines, where there is a consensus among uninvolved users that the violation is disruptive." is blockable. WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR are policies. End. Of. Story. Our blocking policy allows blocks over gross violations of any policy, including core policy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tango#Spirit_versus_letter. You will find NO blocks are made for those policies because they are content findings - administrators do not have the authority to make those decisions, and have been sanctioned where they have used their tools to do so. I think it is clear that you are the one engaging in misrepresentation (intentionally or unintentionally). Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not really true. If somebody were to repeatedly add the statement that Bill Clinton was dead to an article, they would be blocked. The admin in that such a case would be making a content decision - that Bill Clinton is still alive and well! This person would have been blocked for not complying with the verifiability policy. Similarly, people are routinely blocked for writing hoax articles. However, an admin can't adjudicate a disputes about the content of a particular article if this dispute isn't over an editor adding deliberate misinformation, but if an editor is refusing to follow the content policies over a long period of time in multiple articles, this is a problem with this user's behavior, not a problem with the content of any particular article. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's true. THe principle I've reminded editors of in my view notes the exception of BLP material - Bill Clinton is BLP material. Similarly, your other example involves criteria for speedy deletion - if an editor continues to create a hoax article (in effect edit-warring over whether it exists or not), then yes, he will be blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If we're playing the policy game, I should point out that hoaxes are not speedy-deletion candidates. See Wikipedia:Csd#Non-criteria. MastCell ^Talk 17:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In the link you've given, it also states "Note that "blatant and obvious hoaxes and misinformation" are subject to speedy deletion as vandalism." - I assumed that the example of people routinely writing hoax articles alluded to blatant hoaxes. But even if the hoaxes aren't obvious, then it is per WLU (below too). Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Regards the Bill Clinton example, the most appropriate policy would be vandalism though, would it not? Sneaky vandalism? This situation seems like something that should go through dispute resolution to adjudicate on the reliability of the sources - something for the noticeboards, RS, FRINGE, NPOV etc. Once a decision comes out of the noticeboards and consensus is reached based on that, blocking for disruption would appropriate. WLU (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, in the example of disruptive behavior I'm most familiar with from this editor, both an article RfC and discussion at the RS noticeboard have been used and consensus reached. However, this editor refuses to respect this consensus and continues to edit-war and push for the removal of a factual description of what some critics have said, a statement which is supported by multiple sources. Added to that, the facts that such behavior is repeated across multiple articles and is only evident in one of the accounts used by this editor, make this a problem with this editor's behavior. The differences in behavior and subject matter between these two accounts is quite striking, one is used to push a particular POV on alternative medicine, while the other is used to edit BLPs related to alternative medicine. Separating edits like this could be an attempt to avoid scrutiny and hide this editor's real opinions, particularly since no clear reason has been offered by I'clast for the existence of these two accounts. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a stretch to say that consensus was reached in the article RfC, as I pointed out in my Outside view. The article RFC didn't even address TheNautilus's complaint: both your leads had the food faddism and quackery allegations. Don't distort reality and claim consensus when it's not clear that you have it. Where's the discussion at the RS noticeboard? ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 16:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If most of the editors who commented preferred a simple statement that such criticism was made, then I think that is consensus that such a statement of fact should indeed be in the lead. One of the uninvolved editors who commented did suggest that this particular phrase be removed, so it was not as if this issue wasn't discussed in the article RfC. The RS noticeboard discussion is linked at the end of the first paragraph of the Description section, and relates to a different question, whether or not the AMA can be used to represent mainstream medical opinion. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

For my sake, try to reference things directly, i.e. instead of "such criticism" use "the food quackery criticism". If I'm reading what you're saying correctly, my argument stands just as strong as ever. My point is that you gave people the choice between a dichotomy. Several of the handful of editors expressed discomfort with this dichotomy, but forced to choose between one or the other, they chose one. They weren't commenting about the content of the two proposed leads, as the two were virtually the same, but more about the writing style. When you offer people a dichotomy and tell them to choose, many of those who have not studied logic will not realize that it is a false dichotomy. Thus you should be careful about using these sorts of rhetorical strategies in general; be clear that there is a third option of neither. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 18:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

From my read of the discussion about administrators action related to content, both sides are correct but are talking past each other. Try a little harder to think about what the other editors means from their perspective, okay? (More later). FloNight♥♥♥ 21:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

About sums it up

I'm mostly offline for the next week and do not have time to post a properly developed explanation of my view. I'd say that the two 'sides' of this dispute are accurately represented from my quick scan: Tim Vickers wants to include accurate, sourced, very negative "establishment views" on the extreme aspects of OMM, and TheNautilus wants to emphasize its most favorable and scientific aspects. There is no solution that will make them both happy.

However, the reason that I'm posting is this: I would like ImperfectlyInformed to carefully reconsider whether "Outside view" is an accurate heading in this RfC. Perhaps another title would more accurately represent this editor's recent involvement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Does it make a difference? I'll change it to Inside view if it makes you happy, but I only stumbled across this article about a week ago. Prior to that I hadn't even heard of OM. I intend to clean it up after I've done all my research. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 17:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

How about acknowledging that the subject encompasses a wide range of practices from food faddism and quackery to scientifically proven therapies that have been adopted by mainstream medicine.--68.94.91.47 (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Too sensible! :) MastCell ^Talk 19:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Whose IP is that - only contribution in this RFC? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

TheNautilus did say...

in an email that he sent me in March 2007 that he started a new account. At the time I missed that fact that he was only writing to me and not the whole Committee. If I had, I would have forwarded it to the rest of the Committee (I don't think I did). In the email, he does mention that some admins knew the reason for the new account. This was part of a longer email that discusses his views about a case. If is fair to say that he notified several admins and at least one arb. Hope this helps clear up any confusion. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

However, I'clast is still an active editor, so TheNautilus did not switch to a new account. Did this e-mail say that he changed to a different account, or did it say that he was using two accounts simultaneously? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

In that jpgordon stated, "I'd point out that in the absence of any suggestion of abuse... current sockpuppet policy allows for such multiple accounts (a policy I disagree with, but there you have it.) It does look that opinion is already being voiced adequately on the RFC." Further, the sock issue was brought to AN/I and a couple of respected admins that seemed to be familiar with these topics or editor did not see evidence of obvious abuse. Is such a minor discrepancy important whether TheNautilus declared a new account or two accounts simultaneously since it appears no evidence of abuse has been provided on the accounts? Ward20 (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You can have two accounts for several, clearly-defined reasons, but TheNautilus/I'clast has not provided any satisfactory explanation for why these accounts exist. Furthermore, given the general view from the uninvolved editors who have commented so far that this account has been used for tendentious editing and NPOV violations, the use of multiple accounts in this way is deeply troubling. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

He did go into the reasoning in a bit of detail off-wiki with me in the past. I can't say it's something I endorse, but neither did I feel any policy was being violated, and it appeared to fall under WP:SOCK#LEGIT. I will leave it up to him whether he wishes to say anything more about his rationale. MastCell ^Talk 21:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Summary of the scientific evidence

Like I said, TheNautilus, you need to condense and link to your sources, not to other Talk pages. Here is what I've gathered.

• The CMAJ has recently come out in favor of large doses of vitamin D, which contradicts at least to some degree the claims in the open-access [1990 paper used as supporting evidence in the lead. The 2006 paper says that many children in Canada are deficient in vitamin D. The more recent paper also suggests that vitamin D has extremely high toxicity limits -- that toxicity is not a major concern. The 1990 paper acknowledges that high doses of vitamin D are useful in overcoming rickets.
• As far as the vitamin C goes, TheNautilus has pointed to some reputable studies. Hemila claims in the abstract of this PDF that most of the studies cited on vitamin C are recognized as erroneous, and that vitamin C has been shown to help with colds. Hemila's statements should be taken seriously, as Hemila appears to be one of the major researchers on vitamin C. As TimVickers has pointed out, however, Hemila's endorsement of vitamin C is tentative, and seems to be based firmly in the facts. Two positive studies vitamin C have also been published by the PNAS ([2005, 2007). Annual Internal medicine explicitly claims that studies using oral dosages are invalid (IV vitamin C therapy dates back to Klenner, I believe).
• Based on the above studies, TheNautilus claims that this 2003 source used in the lead is patently false, as it claims that megavitamin therapies and OM is never effective. Given that it contradicts the research by the specialists in the fields which is explained in primary sources with non-technical language, I have to agree. It is also well-recognized that niacin is effective for dyslipemia (quick example). The 1990 CMAJ paper also contradicts it with its discussion of vitamin D. A recent meta-review claims that nutritional supplements can cure mental illnesses.
• The remaining two sources used in the lead include the American Cancer Society (2007) and the American Medical Association (1997). Neither of these sources seem to be aware of the intricate nature of the literature and the emerging science, although they do admit that there are some vitamin therapies which work. They should be left in the article, but the OM response needs to be included as well.
• It's clear that there is a burgeoning paradigm shift. We won't find out whether this paradigm shift is entirely justified until a few years pass, but the fact that OM is a separate research tradition (protoscience) with both mainstream and minority science backing it (Hoffer claims to have done the first double-blind studies in psychiatry) needs to be conveyed in the article. Dominant paradigms will usually try to frame those attacking its core beliefs as completely wrong and even "quacky", even when those in the competing tradition have qualifications and science behind them. The story is complex, and it needs to be developed fully. For that reason, perhaps a terse lead may be better, so that major points can be given a full exposition. I invite others to comment on the current lead, also, as there are allegations of WP:SYNTH which I believe are completely unfounded. I also invite others to submit links to expand this summary of the science. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 20:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Vitamins are useful in the treatment of a few diseases and deficiency conditions, but as the current lead says, "broad claims of disease treatment by advocates of orthomolecular medicine are unsubstantiated by the available evidence". This issue isn't whether vitamins can sometimes be useful to treat some people, but whether the broad claims that you can use nutrients to treat everything from bee stings to cancer are well-supported. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with that, although I would prefer that it be made somewhat more specific. I do agree with you that much of mainstream medicine considers OM to be unsubstantiated, and has attacked it for the past forty years. Thus I'm certainly not averse to putting this in the lead. However, the fact is that there are chinks in this attack, and these flaws have been pointed out relatively recently by specialists in the field of nutritional science. Also, strictly speaking, regardless of whether mainstream medicine considers OM to be unsubstantiated by the evidence, the researchers in OM all have Ph.Ds and/or MDs, and were supported by a dual Nobel Prize winner. Thus, it's not fair to say that their own findings have no weight -- especially when claims that the studies used by mainstream medicine to refute OM have been pointed out recently by mainstream researchers. Also, OM is often characterized by certain overly simplified claims (we call this a straw man argument). OM rejects that characterization, and when it comes to defining OM, I believe that OM practitioners should be allowed to do that. Thus, it's false to say that OM techniques are never effective. I'm fairly satisfied with the current lead; however, the 1997 AMA statement seems old, and there should be some hint at the recent research criticizing the old research upon which these claims of unsubstantiation (in the case of vitamin C) are made. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 19:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you please point out where the article claims that advocates of Orthomolecular Medicine claim that it is "well-supported" that vitamins can treat bee stings, as you contend above. The article has this to say: "Based on investigational scientific studies, single-blind and double-blind randomized controlled trials, clinical experience, and case histories, claims have been made that therapeutic nutrition can prevent^[55] treat, and sometimes cure acne, bee stings,..." To my mind saying "claims have been made" is a world apart from saying that something is well-supported.--Alterrabe (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether OM claims that they're well-supported, but whether they are actually well-supported. Tim has a point. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 19:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I can only agree with you that Tim has a point insofar as it is crucial that readers not draw erroneus conclusions that unproven putative therapies are proven. If wikipedia only covered proven, universally adopted theories, we would have to delete all mentions of Newtownian physics in light of Einstein's work, not to mention flat earth theories. This is how wikipedia is invaluable in allowing hypotheses to be made, testing them, either adopting them or rejecting them, and then considering new hypotheses. To my mind, to be against clearly demarked mentions of putative work is to work against the scientific process.--Alterrabe (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"... unsubstantiated by the available evidence" is POVishly incomplete & an unqualified negative, that leaves some impression similar to "polite words for failure" or "unproven = quack" and provides incomplete detail. The text should be about the varying kind of levels of substantiation that OMM *does* have, which tends to be scientific & nutrition research with Level II (& III) medical evidence rather than "cadillaced" with Level I evidence required for new drug use claims or, perhaps more importantly, (often dangerous) novel new drugs.--TheNautilus (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)