The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: snow keep. (non-admin closure) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans[edit]

Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

My concern over this was initially over the WP:LUNATICS shortcut being used on Talk:Autism. This struck me as incredibly jarring -- regardless of the intent behind this shortcut, using it on the talk page of a neurodevelopmental condition seems very ableist, even if unintentional. I believe this essay has the potential to cause great offence and harm -- not to the purveyors of harmful mis/disinformation, as it intends, but to individual editors as a term of abuse.

Attempts to move this page to a more neutral title or tone have been thwarted on the talk page when this was suggested in 2014. I believe attitudes have changed since then and as such, I am proposing this for deletion. Bangalamania (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The abuse is either exceptionally rare, or hypothetical; it can't be both. And I gave an example of its use on the autism talk page, which could be seen as offensive. As I say, I do not think it was used as a term of abuse in that instance – but I think uncritical references to lunatics in the talkpage of any disability-related article is questionable, and for as long as this article exists there will be no way to stop it. And the issue has been discussed on the talk page, a number of different times by different users. – Bangalamania (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, my main problem is with the redirect, but I think that the page as a whole ought to be deleted. For example, the page calls people "lunatics" in Wikipedia's voice. If we are keeping the quote from Jimbo, fine, as you say it's less than ideal but it is a part of our history. But we should not have it at the current title, or call people ableist terms in WP's voice in such an influential essay. −Bangalamania (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Attempts by me and other editors to move the article title, or remove the ableist language in Wikipedia's voice (not including the quote from Jimbo) have been quashed pretty quickly. I don't believe it is acceptable to call people lunatics in Wikipedia's voice, even if they are a purveyor of fake medical cures. Any essay which uncritically called people "retarded charlatans" (as an example) and used WP:RETARDS as a shortcut would have been deleted long ago. Just because Jimbo did it ~7 years ago, doesn't make it OK.
I agree with your unofficial emphasis on the charlatan aspect: however, this is totally impractical to implement on Wikipedia while the page exists in this form. –Bangalamania (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But... you think that after not being able to get consensus to move the page or change the wording, you will be able to get consensus to delete the whole essay? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough. I do appreciate your changes made on the article (I still don't like that "lunatic charlatans" is being used without attribution in the nutshell, or that it's still at its current title, but small steps I guess..). –Bangalamania (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the title wasn't the current one, the shortcut wouldn't exist. The article's title and content (calling people lunatics in its own voice, not just quoting Jimbo) are all part of the problem. – Bangalamania (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The term is no longer used in law or in care for the mentally ill but is still used colloquially and hyperbolically to describe illogical thinkers The same could be said for the term "retarded". Would an article calling illogical thinkers retards in its own voice, with the term in the title, and WP:RETARDS as a shortcut be acceptable? There seems to be a double standard here. – Bangalamania (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man. Jimbo Wales did not call people "retards". You cannot rewrite history. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The term "lunatic" is a historical reference to people with mental illness, and is offensive. Any dictionary definition will tell you that: ([1], [2] [3]). Its offensiveness is well-known. I also oppose the people you call "lunatic charlatans"; I just don't think that using offensive language to refer to them is the best way forward. And as someone who actually does have a mental health condition, but hates pseudoscience and health bullshit-peddlers I find the essay insulting. – Bangalamania (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this essay, the word is not applied to people with developmental disabilities or autism or mental health problems. It is applied to purveyors of pseudoscience. Just today, excerpts of Stephanie Grisham's new book were released. Speaking of Donald Trump, she wrote, "I knew that sooner or later the president would want me to tell the public something that was not true or that would make me sound like a lunatic". The word remains common in casual usage. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your linked sources only support it as offensive when used to refer to mental illness. They specifically do not apply that to usages of the term to mean "foolishness", which is the sense meant here. Those dictionaries show why this should be kept. Crossroads -talk- 03:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Scarpy, it is not the purpose of Wikipedia "to combat pseudoscience" but instead to summarize what the best reliable sources say about pseudoscience. Nobody says that Jimbo is infallible especially me since I have been openly critical of him when I thought that he was wrong. Maybe he could have selected his words a bit more carefully, but this was a major event in the history of this encyclopedia, and we should have an uncensored essay about it. It is not our role as Wikipedia editors to engage in an "improvement to dialogue" with purveyors of pseudoscience. It is our job to swiftly reject the self serving POV pushing contributions of pseudoscience advocates and exclude them completely from this project if they persist, and then to describe their crank theories neutrally, summarizing what truly reliable sources say. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
will take these in reverse order.
Yes, it’s entirely part of our purpose to improve dialogue for several reasons. First, civility is one of Wikipedia’s five pillars. Take a look at how the article and the term is used when linked in talk pages, and you will often find civility decreases in its presence.
Second, is neutrality, another pillar of Wikipedia that’s being ignored here. Neutrality is not just summarizing reliable sources, it means teaching the other side especially carefully, more so when it’s wrong and explaining why in a way the respects the reader. It’s not restoring to cheap tricks (ad hominems, condescension, etc).
Building on this, the third is effective Science Communication and increasing the public understanding of science. This is not an pillar, but is implied by the fact that we’re writing an encyclopedia. Persuasion isn’t always here’s the facts, you’re either an idiot or you’re not. It’s here are the facts and here is a sensitivity to your state of mind. And it’s the facts plus the sensitivity when convolved together creates impact. That’s from the exchange between Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Richard Dawkins from 2006. It’s worth watching in its entirety. The point here is to write articles that create impact. How much effort goes in to writing articles in such a way that they are capable of educating a reader to the point they’re persuaded? Has anyone ever attempted to measure this or vary strategies and see what differences in outcomes were produced? You know, collect evidence to see if people walk away from reading an article and are more or less likely to agree with the points made in it after reading it? What sensitivity do we bring to the state of mind of our audience? Writing a well-sourced screed against pseudoscience is not the same as effective Science Communication—I would say if anything it’s almost the exact opposite.
by what criteria do you judge “major events” associated with Wikipedia? To me, this looks more like impression management than a coherent policy. We’ve made a huge mistake by treating it like a policy, when it’s miles away from that. I see editors took it to mean it’s their “job” to marginalize the out-group, as you said: It is our job to swiftly reject the self serving POV pushing contributions of pseudoscience advocates and exclude them completely from this project if they persist, and then to describe their crank theories neutrally, summarizing what truly reliable sources say. Yeah… that’s not writing an encyclopedia, that’s policing who is allowed to contribute. When you read that and compare it to Larry’s criticism, you can see why many people immediately find editing for Wikipedia to be hostile and why editors seem to feel proud of and justified by their hostility. Again, one of our pillars is civility. Each one of these editors could be a resource for improving how reliable sources are summarized and communicated in an article in a way that they don’t find to be insulting to their state of mind. Often times it appears to me that the tone in many controversial articles is almost taylor-made to anger the out-group… again, if this were Twitter, Fox News, or MSNBC, that would be totally fine—making people angry is how they make their money. We’re a non-profit that’s writing an encyclopedia but we’re starting to act more and more like Buzzfeed and Breitbart. - Scarpy (talk) 11:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
it means teaching the other side especially carefully, more so when it’s wrong and explaining why in a way the respects the reader. It’s not restoring to cheap tricks (ad hominems, condescension, etc). I don't think Wikipedia is meant to be an educational outfit. If it were, there would be a lot that would be different about the site. If reliable sources trumpet ad hominems and condescension, WP in articlespace duly repeats this. The goal of project space is ostensibly to support this goal and, thus, I see no place for the education of the misguided as a raison d'etre for this place. It could be a happy side effect of the website, but it is not what we are about. I say this as an educator who is keenly sensitive to this very point in my classes. If I get a flat earther in class, my approach is not to send them to the Flat Earth article at WP. Nuance in education absolutely requires the touch you are describing. But that is not the remit of this project for better or worse. I also imagine that you haven't been keeping up with Larry Sanger's descent into QAnon advocacy. If he is meant to be anything like a guiding light in this conversation, I fear we are truly lost. jps (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If reliable sources trumpet ad hominems and condescension, WP in articlespace duly repeats this. You just brought a descriptive claim to a normative discussion. I agree post-2014, it's a common practice that's largely enabled by this article. I've never been able to square that with Wikipedia:Five pillars, particularly We strive for articles in an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view".
Well, we are, of course, empowered to adopt whatever protocols we want in projectspace, so if you want to advocate for best practices in pedagogy as rules for that, go ahead. Doesn't seem to me to be consistent with the way things have actually happened, but maybe things change. jps (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see no place for the education of the misguided as a raison d'etre for this place. What would you say is the teleology of encyclopedias and reference works in general, if not education? - Scarpy (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Description. It's all the way down Bloom's taxonomy. jps (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(point of process - I wish you wouldn’t have split my previous comment in half. It makes it harder to follow that thread of discussion)
This sounds to me like an argument for marginalizing Wikipedia and robotizing its editors. With something like GPT-3 trained on reliable sources, we could just say “summarize X topic” and get a coherent article. I believe we’re doing something more human here, that there’s a creativity and deeper theory of mind of the reader in the truly exceptional articles. - Scarpy (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It self-evidently is the purpose of Wikipedia to combat pseudoscience. You just admitted it with your last sentence. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RandomCanadian, WP:NOTCENSORED is a content guideline about articles and images, not about Wikipedia essays. It is frequently cited by those who don't read or consider beyond the words "not censored" and forget that it links to WP:GRATUITOUS. That guidance says "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available". It isn't a licence to be offensive. Again, these are guidelines about articles, not essays. But Scarpy is exactly write that a "I'm right; you're stupid" attitude never won anyone over. And really, that's not the point. Citing these essays and sticking boxes on user pages is tribal signalling, and the more offensive and divisive they can be, the more effective they are at signalling which tribe you are in and which tribe they are in. In doing so, editors step away from building an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit and ignore that we are supposed to work towards consensus. Of course, any of us at times may find ourselves exclaiming "Oh my! I'm surrounded by idiots!", and express those frustrations. But don't make a habit of it, never mind create and use shortcuts that explicitly claim one's opponent is a lunatic, a charlatan, a quack, or is so stupid that they gullibly believe what a lunatic charlatan quack says.
But aside from the essay's shortcuts and purpose, it is just so bloody tedious to read. Some people who the writer respects once said something the writer thought was cool and clever. Some other people who the writer doesn't respect once said something dumb. I agree once again with Scarpy, that it is ridiculous to cite Jimbo as though he is some kind of religious leader or guru who can settle the arguments about alternative medicine or quack science with some wise pronouncement. It is all a bit desperate really. I mean, Sagan was an astronomer (and died before Wikipedia was invented), Minchin is a comedian, and Jimbo was a financial trader who created a successful website. And these are your go-to authorities on medicine? This is supposed to convince anyone? -- Colin°Talk 13:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want an example, google the UK news wrt Angela Rayner calling Boris Johnson 'scum'. Rayner defended her comments by saying Johnson had made racist, homophobic and sexist comments. Nobody really denies that, but his base don't actually care. And calling the Prime Minister "scum" just offends the third of the population who voted for him and like him for some odd reason. It doesn't make them go "You know what? They are Tory Scum, and I have no idea why I was so dumb to vote for them. I'll vote for Rayner instead next time". Of course, within the Left of UK politics, it is simply a given that the Tories are scum. There's no doubt or questioning that belief and plenty evidence to reinforce their perception. But that sort of language doesn't win voters round any more than calling people lunatic charlatans ever changed anyone's perception of alternative medicine. In fact, it just hardens positions. -- Colin°Talk 09:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hob Gadling: Coincidentally last night I heard Jesse Morton and Jonas Kaplan on different podcasts, but more or less on this topic. Do you remember The Clergy Project? There were leaders of religious congregations that had privately become atheists but didn’t state it publicly because they would lose their careers, friends, family, identity, etc. The key here seems to be offering as little friction (or removing it where possible) to people being able to adopt a new identity that’s compatible with a belief you’re trying to get them to change. The insults, particularly when they’re framed as trait rather than a state (you’re a stupid person vs that was a stupid thing to do) seem particularly antithetical in this case. One is saying “because of something immutable about you, you’re in the out-group and you will always be the in out-group.” The other is saying “there’s a finite number of beliefs and behaviors we disagree on, and if X number of these changed you could totally be accepted by the in-group.” So, for somewhat different reasons than the OP, I see language as particularly relevant here because it’s either enables people to change/update identities, or throws up an additional wall to completing the process. - Scarpy (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
particularly antithetical in this case Good thing nobody called anybody else "stupid" then, isn't it? A know-nothing can learn and become a know-something, although becoming a know-it-all is more likely. But the discussion wasn't even about anybody who was present. As I said, the IP does not believe in the thing they wanted to give room to. If it had been an IP who believed in it, I would never have used this wording. And again: the purpose of Talk pages is not convincing people that they are wrong.
It is great that you heard from people I never heard of, a thing I have known for quite a while, which is very remotely connected to the subject this is about, but it is simply not relevant here. The only ones who are treated as an out-group by the essay in question are the "lunatic charlatans" themselves, for example those whose way of earning a living includes telling people not to get vaccinated. If they come editing here, they will be WP:SPA, have a WP:COI, and be WP:NOTHERE (all of those sound like traits, not states), and no one will attempt to convince them that they are wrong, only maybe that they are in the wrong place. Imagine someone from a news organization regarded by Wikipedia as an "unreliable source" comes here to edit. They will probably be deeply hurt by the pigeonhole they have been put in - again, a trait, not a state. Should we try to give all those rules a more palatable wording? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The same Brian Martin that bemoaned that nutter theories about AIDS were 'unfairly dismissed'? And who's sympathetic to relativity deniers and panspermia-nutters like Hoyle and Wickramasinghe? Yeah, can't say I value that guy's opinion much. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit I don't really know anything about the guy, and I'm not on board with any of that stuff you mentioned, but the quote itself I believe warrants a thought, without ad hominem rejection. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brain Martin is just plain wrong about the meanness of the skeptical movement. If anything, they are considerably nicer than scientists when it comes to consideration for those who hold on to out-there ideas. Skeptical debunkings may sting more just because sunlight is a disinfectant. Scientists can't be bothered to do much more than say horrible things behind closed doors and sometimes they are so dismissive as to be risable. jps (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and just for info, Brian Martin is particularly salty when it comes to Wikipedia as he doesn't like that he doesn't have editorial control. jps (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assume what you mean by "nicer" is giving them an ear when scientists won't, which is true on some level. But I don't think this conversation is just about "out there" ideas. It's about applying "lunatic charlatans" in cases that aren't really warranted, for one, and using the term at all, when scientists would not (behind closed doors, sure, okay, but Wiki is not behind closed doors), because I don't think most scientists really care about "debunking things", nor do they care about deciding what to label as pseudoscience as much as some (non-scientist) editors here do. Nor do they care about who or what to call "lunatic" or "quackery". "Lunatic charlatans" is an uncivil, undefined term disguised as Wikipedia's voice, and wielded by those who want to be in the "in-group". In my opinion. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is project space we're talking about here, not article space. If Wikipedia has an article where it identified in Wikipedia's voice a subject as a "lunatic charlatan", that would be one thing. But that's not the thing we're talking about here. Is it uncivil? I am a strong advocate of civility being in the eye of the beholder. If you called me a lunatic charlatan, I would probably laugh it off. But, sure, let's not go around trying to rile up as many people as we can... that's a good principle. What I'm seeing here, though, is a mismatch between the task of volunteer editors putting together an encyclopedia and someone who is concerned about being nice to people. These are not mutually exclusive tasks, but they also are not symbiotic. Things get heated sometimes. This is one area where that happens. Where we do agree is that this is all about in-group versus out-group, but that is largely a good thing. In my opinion. There was a time when cultists held powerful roles at this website, when quack doctors were treated with deference, and when perpetual motion enthusiasts could write in articlespace about any fantastical idea they thought was worthy of inclusion. Those groups are now on the out. Whether and how you want to identify this (namecalling is just something that happens online, dochaknow?) is what this projectspace discussion is really about. For that reason alone, it seems weird to argue in favor of a memory hole. jps (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Thanks for elaborating and making some good points. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ජපස: I am a strong advocate of civility being in the eye of the beholder. I'm trying to follow this reasoning to its end. Let's consider a hypothetical dialogue.
Jimmy: Wikipedia doesn't allow lunatic charlatans.
Timmy: I see what you're saying, but I have a mental illness, and this language feels uncivil. I wish you would phrase what you're saying differently.
Jimmy: Civility is in the eye of the beholder, you're just perceiving it as uncivil. There's nothing inherently uncivil about it.
Timmy: Of course, that's true. All humans have a subjective experience, I'm saying that this is having a negative impact on mine. Since we're going to be collaborators, is it at all possible that we could make an effort to avoid it or use an alternative? Especially not to use such terms as part of policy and guidelines?
Scarpy: Timmy, I've been listening and that seems entirely reasonable to me.
Maybe you would laugh this off, but some people are saying that they have a strong preference that, at least, the wording should be different. I agree that it would be untenable to accommodate every request like this, but where it's the heading and redirect in policy and guidelines, I think it's reasonable to ask for a change. (Personally, I'd go further and say it's also an antithetical attitude to bring to science communication in general). - Scarpy (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not WP:PAG. This is an essay. I can identify a lot of essays I think are garbage and think should be deleted (and a few I have asked to be deleted), but they're kept in spite of my disdain. That seems to just be the way things go here. jps (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a really good point, and I’m happy to be corrected me here. Categorically, this is just an essay. But, from what I can see, almost exclusively used in a policy-like way. If you look at what Jimmy said here it’s an edict-like “thou shalt not” commandment though it happens to appear in an essay. If you look at where it’s linked on talk pages, you’ll see it used as demonstrative evidence, rather than “you should consider this important POV in this essay.” If it’s day-to-day invocation was less of the first case and more of the second case, I would have less of an issue here. Some examples: page links from the top looking at talk pages where this is cited using “lunatic” in Talk:Gua sha, Talk:Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection, Talk:Eurythmy, Talk:Lamar Smith, Talk:Osteopathic manipulation. Is this not trying to have it both ways? It’s an essay so ad hominems are more permissible than in PAG, but it’s treated like a PAG? - Scarpy (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're hoping for a change in behavior here in terms of how people might use this essay that may be a reasonable goal, but that goal is not going to be achieved just because this essay gets deleted. If not this essay then another will be wielded in similar fashion because, well, this is Wikipedia and it's allowed to make your point in any way you want. You are free to point out when people use this essay that it is "only an essay" (many people do that), but because WP:OMGLINKS are used at this website to make these sorts of points, and there is no quick an easy way to figure out when the person is doing this with respect to a policy, guideline, essay, or wikiproject, for that matter, that's the situation we are stuck in. This larger question is one you can try to bring up at village pump, but I imagine the consensus is going to be something like, "it works well enough and trying to force volunteers to adhere to some standard is nigh on impossible. Just move on." In any case, "people are using this essay as though it were policy" hasn't really been a justification for deletion before -- especially when the page is clearly marked as an essay. That's just the history of this wacky place! jps (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And who also fights against proper journalistic peer review (with an "academic freedom" excuse)... —PaleoNeonate – 22:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Years ago I really thought that somewhere in the world, the alternative medicine community had some research, some publications, some evidence, or something somewhere which we could cite in Wikipedia as the evidence of what exists. After so much time has passed and so many people have either posted complaints or personally emailed me saying that they had a book or a paper or something to share, but then they never delivered. I think Wikipedia made a valuable discovery. At this point everyone who is a major teacher of alt med knows about Wikipedia, and uniformly, no thought leader in this space has even attempted mutual understanding with Wikipedia or a public conversation. We have extended a lot of invitations, and in return, I have not seen the citations. This page draws a line between evidence based medicine and alt med without evidence, and so far as I can tell, we are the first organization to clearly call out to the world that we are certain we looked everywhere and found no reason to doubt that the evidence we have compiled in Wikipedia is the best description anyone has compiled for alt med. If anyone comes up with better text, then of course, they can post it and get Wikipedia's editorial review and show that to the world. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is sometimes bad at parsing out key details, though. Take hypnotherapy. It's called alternative medicine on Wikipedia, yet if you read the article it says, "A 2019 meta-analysis of hypnosis as a treatment for anxiety found that "the average participant receiving hypnosis reduced anxiety more than about 79% of control participants," and then if I go out and do my own research to see what medical establishments say and read this from Merck: "Hypnotherapy has been used with some success to help people stop smoking. It can reduce pain and anxiety during medical procedures in adults and children." So as a reader, I might be confused that something that Wikipedia defines as total quackery, pseudoscientific lunacy, has in fact produced scientific evidence. Now, some editors will cry foul of that research, and other research, or say that it's WP:UNDUE. But that's one example where there is not always a one-size-fits-all approach. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing our article on hypnotherapy doesn't describe it as complete bollocks without any scientific merit, but rather partly bollocks, with many potential cases where it could be legit. And that it's a particularly hard subject to research due to poorly understood/complex mechanisms which makes hard it to test its claim. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But surely you can see the flaw in the logic equation, right?
1. Wikipedia says that all alternative medicine has no scientific merit
2. Wikipedia says that hypnotherapy is alternative medicine
3. Ergo, hypnotherapy has no scientific merit
But that conclusion does not match up with the facts that you and I just agreed upon, does it? This is what I'm saying about inconsistencies that confuse readers. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia says that all alternative medicine has no scientific merit" No, Wikipedia says, broadly speaking, that 'alternative medicine' is either a) not proven to work (either at all, or as efficiently as non-alternative medicine), or b) proven not to work (either at all, or as efficiently as non-alternative medicine). The part that's proven to work as effectively or better than non-alternative medicine then becomes non-alternative medicine itself. For instance, this summer, I was prescribed/recommended by a real medical doctor, with real qualifications, to do nasal rinse with saline for a nasty throat/ear/sinus infection that just wouldn't go away, in combination with antiviral and antibiotic treatments. You can go "but wait, holistic/organic/Ayurvedic medicine proponents love saline, that's alternative medicine." And the answer to that is no, it's not alternative medicine / Ayurvedic medicine, it's plain jane medicine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia says "Anything classified as alternative medicine by definition does not have a healing or medical effect." So if something like hypnotherapy is used in the medical field and is shown by evidence to have medical benefits, something has to give. Either it should be reclassified away from alternative medicine, defined as complementary or integrative medicine, or sentences like the one I just shared should be reworded. Pfizer is unlikely to extract a "hypnotic compound" anytime soon, so it's not as straightforward as herbs vs drugs. I hope you're feeling better, by the way. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia says "Anything classified as alternative medicine by definition does not have a healing or medical effect." I'm going to put a big fat [citation needed] on that. And I'm fine now, the infection went away, because antivirals/antibiotics/nasal rinses work, unlike homeopathy and Ayurvedic nonsense like magic pills laced with heavy metals. You know, the kind of stuff promoted by lunatic charlatans. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's warranted. Glad you're feeling better and staying away from those lead and mercury pills. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem the proven to work / not proven to work / proven to not work sets is that it is way too simplistic. It isn't like medicine is entirely in the first pot, and alt medicine is entirely in the second and third pots. Truly evidence-based medicine is a tiny subset of medicine. And then there's the whole effects/side-effects problem. Thalidomide was evidence-based and an effective sedative, etc. They gave mice huge doses and they came to no harm. Patients could overdose on it and be ok, unlike barbiturates (another evidence-based medicine) that would likely kill you. But if you were pregnant... Plenty cases of surgeons performing ops that everyone knows are ineffective and were never shown to be effective, or implanting meshes that caused terrible harm, or painkiller addiction epidemics, or sedating problem psychiatric patients, etc, etc. This is the problem with essays like this. They are so ridiculously arrogant. -- Colin°Talk 18:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It strikes me as ironic and somewhat hypocritical to use a polemic like "ridiculously arrogant" to attack an essay that you say you don't like because it is a polemic. jps (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To call this essay a "polemic" is insulting to polemics. Lame and counterproductive would be more appropriate adjectives. All of us here agree on the facts about effective medicines and ineffective nonsense. The problem is the approach. As I said, these essays and user boxes don't serve any purpose other than tribal signalling. Anyone citing this cause they think they'll change minds about why Wikipedia adopts certain policies is quite deluded. During the Brexit debate, the Remainers focused their attention on why leaving was stupid and how anyone who suggested it was a good idea was the biggest lunatic charlatan, peddling lies about immigration and red tape and extra money for the NHS. They lost. And what is ironic, is that there is scientific evidence that this sort of approach doesn't work. -- Colin°Talk 21:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"doesn't work"? If the target audience was quacks, of course not, but this is singing to the choir, IOW venting, so that's a bit of a straw man assertion. -- Valjean (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Valjean, see my comment above about tribal signalling. But unfortunately pro-science editors don't cite this at other pro-science editors in some cozy smug "are't we just the cleverest folk" conversation. They cite it (like at talk Autism) at anyone asking about our balance wrt alt-medicine. Have a look at the "what links here". So I do think they believe this might convince someone of the error of their ways. -- Colin°Talk 07:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this can be misused, but misuse is not a good argument for deletion. Pro-science activists and quackbusters aren't always the most tactful people, and since they are in the trenches constantly surrounded by idiots, charlatans, liars, and those who threaten their lives and threaten their children, patience can wear thin and they don't react to that pressure with patient and wise responses. That's life. Execute the bunch of them and let the quacks rule, fleece victims, and cause needless deaths![sarcasm] (Don't worry. I don't think you take that position.)
Deletion of the offensive redirect is another matter, and I tend to support that idea. Otherwise, that something is offensive is rarely a good enough justification for deletion. We are uncensored, and that means we have content here which will inevitably offend someone or some group. (BTW, one of my children has autism.) -- Valjean (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Valjean: I suppose this is the opposite of canvassing, since I mildly disagree with you about the redirect, but based on your comment in bold, I'm just making sure you're aware of Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_September_28#Wikipedia:LUNATICS. I didn't see your signature there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Valjean, I hope it is clear I'm on the same side as the "pro-science" folk. While your characterisation of their battle is certainly true for some (I vividly remember Simon Singh's libel case), the sad truth is that many are just folk in their bedrooms arguing on the internet to make themselves feel superior. You know the kind, who think it is really clever to insult those who believe in "sky fairies" and who use the word "sheeple" without irony. Wrt deletion, yes I know wikipedia won't delete this because it has a high tolerance for allowing people to make a fool of themselves online. My vote is more of a "If it were up to me..." kind of opinion. -- Colin°Talk 09:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, I know exactly what you're talking about. Keep up the good work. -- Valjean (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They can if they like but that would be a chunk of work and I don't really see the point. I think the more productive thing to do here is to just close this MfD and move on to discussing a better name for the essay. Personally, I think "Quacks and charlatans" would address whatever legitimate concerns there may be here while retaining the overall tone and impact of the title. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The name is fine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bad MfD request The problem the OP seems to have is with the (potential misuse of) a shortcut and not the specific content of the essay, which in no uncertain terms suggests we are against pseudoscience (and I think we can't stress it enough). Since Bangalamania cannot point to specific problems of the essay (as opposed to the shortcut), the request should be dismissed as malformed. I will comment on the shortcut in a separate discussion. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


More