Talk:Amy L. Lansky

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

BLP dispute?[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has placed a Template:blpdispute tag on the article. He didn't indicate anything about what "controversial claims" he thinks are inappropriate and need to be removed immediately, but his contributions suggest that maybe there's an anti-homeopathy agenda at work, so I'm inclined to ignore it until we hear more about it at least. That's why I removed the tag. Dicklyon (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop posting SPAM articles to Wikipedia. What anti-homeopathy agenda are you talking about? Homeopathy sucks!!! (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It's an ordinary bio. I don't think it represents any bias in favor of homeopathy, but if it does, point it out or fix it. Thanks for clarifying your own POV. Dicklyon (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
"This transition was prompted by the cure of her autistic son Max.[4] In 2003, she published Impossible Cure: The Promise of Homeopathy (ISBN 0-9727514-0-8). This book is now used as a textbook in homeopathy schools, has achieved broad popularity, and is a best-selling book at" Are you saying that autism can be cured with sugar pills? I suppose you understand that anecdotic evidence is no evidence at all, and there is no evidence that homeopathy is any more effective than placebo therapy. Making such claims is totally irresponsible and a violation of the NPOV policy. This isn't an ordinary biography, this is SPAM!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the passage you quote has NPOV issues. The best approach here is to edit that passage to make it seem less like a press release. In addition, if you feel the entire article is inappropriate for Wikipedia (I might agree), you should nominate it at WP:AFD. SparsityProblem (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I changed it to not say that he was "cured", but rather that he recovered after homeopathic treatment. And I added another source. If there are some who dispute these facts, let's cite them, too. Dicklyon (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
What the hell, Dicklyon? You are a scientist! What are you trying to say in this article? She is a respected computer scientist turned homeopath, I get it; but this doesn't lend credibility to her claims that homeopathy can cure autism. I think the entire homeopathy section is out of place, it is not encyclopedic and the article basically reads like advertisement and self-promotion. And what's with the external link? Did she ask you to write this article? (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC), please don't make personal attacks, and please consider opening a Wikipedia account if you wish to keep editing. Discuss content, not other editors or their motivations, please. As I said before, if you see that there are issues with this article (and there are certainly issues), be bold and edit the article to fix them. SparsityProblem (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
What am I trying to say in this article? Nothing much, really, just trying to present a brief bio of Amy Lansky from verifiable reliable sources. Am I trying to support her claim that homeopathy works? No, I'm not; just reporting it. As for the external link, it's conventional in bios to give an external link to a person's site, rather than to use it as a source (Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_people#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source). So I'm unclear on what you find objectionable or unencyclopedic about the homeopathy section; it is an important part of Lansky's notability. I certainly would agree that we should not add anything interpretive about whether we believe her interpretation of her son's cure; nor should we have any kind of "appeal to authority"; but I don't think we do have that. If you do, then maybe a careful edit could fix it? Dicklyon (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I did state the reasons on the talk page, and I apologize if my last comment was taken as a personal attack, but you'll have to agree that this article has issues. You may say it's just my opinion, but this article reads like blatant spam to me. We all know that homeopathy is controversial; and as with many other disciplines considered to be pseudoscientific, almost anyone can claim to be an expert on the field and get a reputation as such, so this is not just my opinion. Again, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but considering the lack of scientific evidence supporting homeopathy, how do we know this person is not a quack, or self-deluded? I really don't think this article meets the notability criteria. If you say the tag is inappropriate then, what is the procedure to follow in this situation? (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't take it as an attack, but it was improper to focus on me instead of on the content issues. I'm still unclear on what you mean by "blatant spam". In BLPs, you don't get to challenge a person's views, you just present them, as previously described in reliable sources. Yes we all know that homeopathy is controversial; I think we also all agree that persons with controversial views are sometimes notable, and should have a wikipedia article about them. I felt that Lansky was one such person. The article does not say that Lanksy is an expert, or repeat a claim of hers that she's an expert. It says she wrote a book, and that she " a quote-expert-unquote on various alternative health forums." I don't know how you can describe her more neutrally than that, but take a good read of WP:BLP and let us know if we got anything wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This isn't "blatant spam", but it should reflect the scientific consensus that homeopathy is a sham. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Fairly blatant. I've removed some of the self-serving, promotional material not backed by independent sourcing. --Ronz (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)