Talk:Dana Ullman

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

UC Berkeley alum[edit]

Given this article in the California Alumni magazine[1], it appears that Dana Ullman is an alumnus. —Whig (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


Ullman's article on Darwin and Homeopathy - wikipedia[edit]

http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/7/1/33

Is Ullman banned from wikipedia? If yes it should be stated in the article. I think. --BeatriceX (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

A) What are we supposed to do with this “Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine” Commentary? Even if Mr Ullman's assertions about Darwin were true (I doubt it), the evidence base of homeopathy wouldn't be improved one bit by it.
B) No, Dana is only topic-banned (i.e. banned from editing articles dealing with homeopathy) and otherwise free to contribute to Wikipedia. I don't think that needs to be included in the article, it's really not that important to the rest of the world as indicated by the lack of independend reliable sources covering it. --Six words (talk) 08:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
It is not about improvement of the evidence for or against homeopathy but intellectual curiosity you suppose to encourage. Isn't that a encyclopedia supposes to encourage? I don't think that anyone doubts about the accuracy of the article's facts. They are basically facts which can be found in Darwin letters.
Is it reasonable to ban someone from a topic who is so notable that there is an article about him , and the same time to try to keep it as a secret ? Are you aware of the impression that fact alone gives to readers about wikipedia ?--24.168.43.231 (talk) 15:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Nope, we're just reporting on notable facts, in this case about Mr Ullman, so I don't think the commentary you linked to is very useful here (also I think I just said I doubt its accuracy, didn't I?). About the topic ban: in order for something to be notable, it is usually expected that this fact has been reported by other sources (though there are some exceptions from this rule). If I tried to keep his topic ban a secret I wouldn't have told you about it, and no, I'm not aware of the impression that gives to readers. This talk page is not for discussing his ban; if you're interested in it you can read about it on his talk page and the arbitration case, out in the open and not a secret at all. I already gave my opinion on mentioning it in this article, but perhaps others will disagree with me and decide this is important, then it can go into the article as soon as someone finds a reliable source reporting on this topic ban. Until then it has to stay out because we're not allowed to use Wikipedia as a source. Six words (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. I would like to hear the exceptions. --BeatriceX (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
This is rather off-topic now as talk pages are meant to discuss how to improve the corresponding articles, but I guess a short answer won't hurt: the sources have to be considered reliable, so if something was reported in multiple gossip magazines that wouldn't automatically make it notable, especially when we're dealing with the biography of a living person as we do here. For other general questions please use the Help desk. Six words (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


The article you want to include is Ullman's speculation.
I include a quote from the journal you cite describing commentaries, such as Ullman's, in their pages: Hypotheses, Conjectures, Comments: Evidence-based CAM will publish in the section Hypotheses-Conjectures-Comments papers proposing hypotheses that are interesting but still lack certain evidence. The paper can be purely speculative, but authors are requested to thoroughly discuss existing data related to the hypothesis and also to propose a methodology (experimental, epidemiological or statistical) as to how the hypothesis can be tested.[2]
In the case of this page, if another researcher writes about Ullman's article and this speculation of his, then the speculation might become noteworthy enough to include in this article. Until then, it's not.--Kleopatra (talk) 10:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Some of the so-called "facts" contained in the article are plainly inaccurate - the concentrations of active ingredients Darwin was experimenting with were not homeopathic quantities, and it is incorrect to say they were. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
It's not an "article" as I stated above. This journal clearly distinguishes articles from commentary. Ullman's piece is commentary. As such it can be "purely speculative."[3] --Kleopatra (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I meant in that paper, whatever its official designation - my point is simply that the comment "I don't think that anyone doubts about the accuracy of the article's facts" is mistaken, because its speculative claims are not facts, and at least some are clearly false. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay. I would like to nail the point that it is commentary, not an article though. Thanks. --Kleopatra (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Ullman's claims on Darwin are categorically false. You could read the article on Charles Darwin's health for context. A judge has also stated that Ullman's views on hoemopathy are "not credible" due to his obvious bias. Note that he also claimed Florence Nightingale as a supporter of homeopathy, when she characterised it as being suitable for the "reckless physicking of amateur females" - which, in context, makes it absolutely plain that she knew the "globules" to be inert. Guy (Help!) 13:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
In due respect, Mr Chapman, what specific statement(s) of mine is/are "categorically false"? Please make certain to review each of my statements about Darwin and the context that I provided for them. Your extreme biases against homeopathy and me are in keeping with the goals and aspirations of Wikipedia. DanaUllmanTalk 17:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Welcome back, DanaUllman. I thought you were blocked. What are you here to have changed? Delta13C (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm blocked from contributing to articles on homeopathy...and of course, I cannot change my bio here. However, I think that I can express some concern that there's a dubious reference in my bio about the "dullman's law" that is referenced to a blog. Does Wikipedia now recognize that blogs are responsible sources of information? Has Wikipedia gone that downhill? What is remarkable is that at least one Wiki administrator has been an active editor at this bio [[user:JzG], and it seems that he allows blog as references as long as they are anti-homeopathy and anti-Dana Ullman. Just saying...DanaUllmanTalk 17:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Originally, I was simply responding to Guy Chapman's unfounded assertions that my writings on Charles Darwin are inaccurate. My article was published in a peer-review medical journal, and no article published in a peer review medical journal has ever provided evidence of a single statement of mine that was inaccurate [[4]]. It is common for antagonists to homeopathy to make unfounded assertions, but it is particularly problematic when a Wiki administrator does so.DanaUllmanTalk 17:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
That word "unfounded". Your claims about Darwin are directly contradicted by his own letters. He stopped seeing Gully long before he wrote Origin, and there is unambiguous evidence that he was entirely scornful of the claims of homeopaths. The puzzling thing here is why you keep repeating the same assertions because the errors in your claims have been pointed out many times by numerous people. As you admitted in court, youa re not an impartial expert, but a passionate advocate for homeopathy - which necessarily means that you embrace counterfactual claims.
Yes, I am an "antagonist" towards homeopathy. I am also an "antagonist" towards the casein theory of lunar geology, hollow earth theories, chemtrails and numerous other fictional constructs portrayed by believers as truth. That is not a problem because Wikipedia follows the mainstream. Guy (Help!) 00:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
In due respect, you have not made any specific reference to a specific statement that I made in my article that was incorrect. I acknowledged Darwin's skepticism of homeopathy, but it seems that you either didn't read my article, or are purposefully mis-reporting on it. Dr. Gully was Darwin's favorite physician, and virtually every Darwin scholar acknowledges that. However, Dr. Gully retired long before 1859 when Darwin wrote his seminal volume. If you get around to reading my article, you'll find that Darwin says that he is dying ("going the way of all flesh"), that he is unable to work one in three days, that he is having a wide variety of serious symptoms...virtually all of which disappeared within 8 days of homeopathic and hydropathic treatment, though his nausea returned. Sadly, some antagonists to homeopathy are so biased that they mis-read and mis-report on this subject chronically. I hope you're curable.DanaUllmanTalk 01:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Dana, all this played out on Edzard's blog just recently. You were shown the evidence that Darwin dropped Gully in favour of Lane, expressing satisfaction that Lane did not engage in the nonsense of homeopathy. He did this well before Origin was published. Darwin had a cyclic condition, and in fact there is no evidence that either the water cure (which he credited) or homeopathy (which he ridiculed) made any actual difference. It would be a fundamental error to even try to compare 19th Century medical diagnosis with today, back then virtually everything in medical knowledge was wrong.
The progress in medicine that has led, in part, to the doubling of life expectancy, occurred only after medical science learned to test things objectively and discard that which does not work. The best available evidence says that homeopathy does not work. That is not a surprise: there is no reason to suppose it should, as like does not cure like, and no way it can, as no property of matter is consistent with the claims of homeopathy. Science has discarded homeopathy as simply wrong but, like creationism, a few people are unwilling to let go of their beliefs. And you identified yourself as one of these in court. The judge noted that you admit to being not a neutral expert but instead a passionate advocate. As such, we should give your opinions exactly as much weight as we would give those of the Pope on the literal transubstantiation of bread and wine.
You have been caught red handed making hundreds of bogus claims in support of homeopathy. This is only one of a huge collection and there's no real point pretending otherwise because the papers are available to public view and we even have an article on Charles Darwin's health which is well-referenced and refutes your claims. Guy (Help!) 15:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Guy, it is typical for you to refer to a blog as though that was some type of "reliable" evidence. In contrast, my article about Darwin was published in a peer-review journal [[5]]. Further, there is NO doubt that Darwin's favorite physician was Gully...and the reason that Darwin sought treatment from Dr. Lane was that Dr. Gully had stopped practicing. Your statement above is simply further evidence of your ignorance on this subject and of your bias against anything that might provide a positive fact about homeopathy. The bottomline is that Darwin asserted that he was dying in 1849...and after the captain from the Beagle recommended that Darwin get treatment from Dr. Gully, Darwin experienced a remarkable improvement in his health within 8 days of his arrival. Further, the vast majority of his serious symptoms (heart palpitations, fainting spells, spots before his eyes, and tremendous fatigue that has so bad that he said that he couldn't work one day in every 3 days), and yet, Darwin's diary shows no evidence of him reporting on these symptoms for at least 10 years...at which time he published his seminal book, "The Origin of Species."

It is remarkable that other Wikipedia editors and administrators allow User:JzG (Guy) to spew mis-information. How or why is this User allowed to do this? DanaUllmanTalk 20:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dana Ullman. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)