Author Topic: Episode #731  (Read 1836 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online CookieMustard

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 197
Re: Episode #731
« Reply #30 on: July 14, 2019, 05:30:53 PM »
So Last week WTN could possibly be a snuff audio of a woman’s last screams while burning to death. (?!)
Seriously guys, that’s so upsetting and insensitive, WTF were you thinking.  ???

What I find upsetting about it is that a program that frequently repeats the quotation  "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" should not recognize that the recording is likely a hoax.

Offline The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *****
  • Posts: 8043
Re: Episode #731
« Reply #31 on: July 14, 2019, 06:25:10 PM »
Yeah, taking at face value the ravings of such a conspiracy theory is really disappointing.
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9146
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: Episode #731
« Reply #32 on: July 14, 2019, 09:15:10 PM »
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him.

Tarvek: There's more to being an evil despot than getting cake whenever you want it.
Agatha: If that's what you think, then you're DOING IT WRONG!

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5004
Re: Episode #731
« Reply #33 on: July 14, 2019, 10:04:55 PM »
I just heard, and confirmed myself, that wikipedia has removed some very prominent LCHF leaders from their pages.
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5004
Re: Episode #731
« Reply #34 on: July 14, 2019, 10:10:52 PM »
Cara says she can't feel earthquakes below a 6 and felt that very few people could feel anything below a high 5. She sounded amazed that people could feel a 3. Could this be because she lives in a large city where traffic and heavy commercial businesses just overpower such weak tremors?  ???

I live in a remote, thinly populated area and have experienced about a dozen tremors over my life and they were all between 2.5 and 3.5. The 3.5 was enough to feel minor movement, and was felt by people over several towns in my area.

Cara should spend some time in Aoteara... might change her mind about feeling minor earthquakes.  The fatal CHC quake was 100+ kms away.  I immediately told my beautiful wife that if that wasn't under us (like a zillion other minor shakes) CHC was in trouble.  It was.
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2091
Re: Episode #731
« Reply #35 on: July 15, 2019, 12:02:33 AM »
I just heard, and confirmed myself, that wikipedia has removed some very prominent LCHF leaders from their pages.

Only cults have ‘leaders.’  If LCHF diets were rational, they’d have proponents, publishing evidence.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5004
Re: Episode #731
« Reply #36 on: July 15, 2019, 01:56:56 AM »
I just heard, and confirmed myself, that wikipedia has removed some very prominent LCHF leaders from their pages.

Only cults have ‘leaders.’  If LCHF diets were rational, they’d have proponents, publishing evidence.

BS, even Scouts have "leaders".  As for evidence, those people have published in peer review journals like the BMJ and write entire books on health and nutrition... as well as teaching at universities, lecturing at conferences, doing surgery and practicing medicine.

Who is behind black listing these people?  No doubt there are others in entirely seperate fields that have also been blacklisted.
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2617
    • jt512
Re: Episode #731
« Reply #37 on: July 15, 2019, 04:37:17 AM »
I just heard, and confirmed myself, that wikipedia has removed some very prominent LCHF leaders from their pages.

Only cults have ‘leaders.’  If LCHF diets were rational, they’d have proponents, publishing evidence.

BS, even Scouts have "leaders".  As for evidence, those people have published in peer review journals like the BMJ and write entire books on health and nutrition... as well as teaching at universities, lecturing at conferences, doing surgery and practicing medicine.

Who is behind black listing these people?  No doubt there are others in entirely seperate fields that have also been blacklisted.


No one was "blacklisted."  Anyone can propose a Wikipedia article for deletion for not meeting Wikipedia's article standards. The article then undergoes a 7-day discussion period in an attempt to reach consensus among editors as to whether the article meets Wikipedia's standards.  The consensus of the editors determines whether the article is deleted or retained.  Most Wikipedia editors couldn't care one way or the other about low-carbohydrate diets and hence can be relied on to judge these articles on the basis of Wikipedia's criteria.  As far as I can tell, only one or two low-carb authors' articles were deleted.  Most were retained. 

To illustrate how the process worked, here is the text of the decision for one of the low-carb proponents, Uffe Ravnskov, whose article was retained:

Quote
The result was [/size]'''keep'''[/b][/size]. Since this was a lengthy and contentious discussion, I think it may be helpful for my closing rationale to be laid out in detail. To begin with, I am entirely disregarding comments by a blocked sock, !votes from IPs/new accounts that clearly have an agenda to advance, and a !vote that is identical to ones made by the user at other AfDs. [/size]Nonetheless, there is consensus here to keep. [[WP:PROF]] is independent from [[WP:GNG]]; a scholar needs meet only one to be considered notable. A convincing argument has been made that Ravnskov meets criterion 1 of WP:PROF, on the basis of his citation record: this argument has not been convincingly refuted. Any argument about whether or not he meets GNG is therefore a non sequitur.Some editors have argued to delete this on the basis that Ravnskov is a fringe theorist. That fact itself is not a valid reason to delete; notability is independent of the POV of an individual. We ''do'' need to have enough intellectually independent content about an individual to write an article about them that conforms to NPOV. A convincing argument to delete on these grounds would have to demonstrate that it is impossible to write a reliably sourced neutral piece about Ravskov (even if such a piece is a stub): no such demonstration has been made. The current state of the article leaves much to be desired, but while [[WP:TNT]] is sometimes a persuasive argument, AfD is ultimately not meant for cleanup. Sockpuppetry can be dealt with via protection; editors pushing a fringe POV need to be dealt with at ANI or elsewhere. Deletion is not a solution for our difficulties in producing neutral content. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 13:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


To summarize, some anti–low-carb individual proposed the deletion.  The discussion was opened per Wikipedia policy.  A sock puppet and some agenda-pushers were quickly found out and their comments in the discussion were disregarded.  The issue of Ravnskov being a fringe theorist was ruled irrelevant.  The article was retained because Ravnskov was deemed to meet Wikipedia's notability criterion on the basis of his citation record. 

Sorry, but there was no conspiracy among Wikipedia editors against LCHF "leaders." 
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5004
Re: Episode #731
« Reply #38 on: July 15, 2019, 05:20:25 AM »
I just heard, and confirmed myself, that wikipedia has removed some very prominent LCHF leaders from their pages.

Only cults have ‘leaders.’  If LCHF diets were rational, they’d have proponents, publishing evidence.

BS, even Scouts have "leaders".  As for evidence, those people have published in peer review journals like the BMJ and write entire books on health and nutrition... as well as teaching at universities, lecturing at conferences, doing surgery and practicing medicine.

Who is behind black listing these people?  No doubt there are others in entirely seperate fields that have also been blacklisted.


No one was "blacklisted."  Anyone can propose a Wikipedia article for deletion for not meeting Wikipedia's article standards. The article then undergoes a 7-day discussion period in an attempt to reach consensus among editors as to whether the article meets Wikipedia's standards.  The consensus of the editors determines whether the article is deleted or retained.  Most Wikipedia editors couldn't care one way or the other about low-carbohydrate diets and hence can be relied on to judge these articles on the basis of Wikipedia's criteria.  As far as I can tell, only one or two low-carb authors' articles were deleted.  Most were retained. 

To illustrate how the process worked, here is the text of the decision for one of the low-carb proponents, Uffe Ravnskov, whose article was retained:

Quote
The result was [/size]'''keep'''[/b][/size]. Since this was a lengthy and contentious discussion, I think it may be helpful for my closing rationale to be laid out in detail. To begin with, I am entirely disregarding comments by a blocked sock, !votes from IPs/new accounts that clearly have an agenda to advance, and a !vote that is identical to ones made by the user at other AfDs. [/size]Nonetheless, there is consensus here to keep. [[WP:PROF]] is independent from [[WP:GNG]]; a scholar needs meet only one to be considered notable. A convincing argument has been made that Ravnskov meets criterion 1 of WP:PROF, on the basis of his citation record: this argument has not been convincingly refuted. Any argument about whether or not he meets GNG is therefore a non sequitur.Some editors have argued to delete this on the basis that Ravnskov is a fringe theorist. That fact itself is not a valid reason to delete; notability is independent of the POV of an individual. We ''do'' need to have enough intellectually independent content about an individual to write an article about them that conforms to NPOV. A convincing argument to delete on these grounds would have to demonstrate that it is impossible to write a reliably sourced neutral piece about Ravskov (even if such a piece is a stub): no such demonstration has been made. The current state of the article leaves much to be desired, but while [[WP:TNT]] is sometimes a persuasive argument, AfD is ultimately not meant for cleanup. Sockpuppetry can be dealt with via protection; editors pushing a fringe POV need to be dealt with at ANI or elsewhere. Deletion is not a solution for our difficulties in producing neutral content. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 13:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


To summarize, some anti–low-carb individual proposed the deletion.  The discussion was opened per Wikipedia policy.  A sock puppet and some agenda-pushers were quickly found out and their comments in the discussion were disregarded.  The issue of Ravnskov being a fringe theorist was ruled irrelevant.  The article was retained because Ravnskov was deemed to meet Wikipedia's notability criterion on the basis of his citation record. 

Sorry, but there was no conspiracy among Wikipedia editors against LCHF "leaders."


It isn't just articles that are deleted, it is entire biographies.  Here is one:

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2018/12/18/wikipedia-a-parable-for-our-times/
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2617
    • jt512
Re: Episode #731
« Reply #39 on: July 15, 2019, 05:26:51 AM »
I just heard, and confirmed myself, that wikipedia has removed some very prominent LCHF leaders from their pages.

Only cults have ‘leaders.’  If LCHF diets were rational, they’d have proponents, publishing evidence.

BS, even Scouts have "leaders".  As for evidence, those people have published in peer review journals like the BMJ and write entire books on health and nutrition... as well as teaching at universities, lecturing at conferences, doing surgery and practicing medicine.

Who is behind black listing these people?  No doubt there are others in entirely seperate fields that have also been blacklisted.


No one was "blacklisted."  Anyone can propose a Wikipedia article for deletion for not meeting Wikipedia's article standards. The article then undergoes a 7-day discussion period in an attempt to reach consensus among editors as to whether the article meets Wikipedia's standards.  The consensus of the editors determines whether the article is deleted or retained.  Most Wikipedia editors couldn't care one way or the other about low-carbohydrate diets and hence can be relied on to judge these articles on the basis of Wikipedia's criteria.  As far as I can tell, only one or two low-carb authors' articles were deleted.  Most were retained. 

To illustrate how the process worked, here is the text of the decision for one of the low-carb proponents, Uffe Ravnskov, whose article was retained:

Quote
The result was '''keep'''. Since this was a lengthy and contentious discussion, I think it may be helpful for my closing rationale to be laid out in detail. To begin with, I am entirely disregarding comments by a blocked sock, !votes from IPs/new accounts that clearly have an agenda to advance, and a !vote that is identical to ones made by the user at other AfDs. Nonetheless, there is consensus here to keep. [[WP:PROF]] is independent from [[WP:GNG]]; a scholar needs meet only one to be considered notable. A convincing argument has been made that Ravnskov meets criterion 1 of WP:PROF, on the basis of his citation record: this argument has not been convincingly refuted. Any argument about whether or not he meets GNG is therefore a non sequitur.Some editors have argued to delete this on the basis that Ravnskov is a fringe theorist. That fact itself is not a valid reason to delete; notability is independent of the POV of an individual. We ''do'' need to have enough intellectually independent content about an individual to write an article about them that conforms to NPOV. A convincing argument to delete on these grounds would have to demonstrate that it is impossible to write a reliably sourced neutral piece about Ravskov (even if such a piece is a stub): no such demonstration has been made. The current state of the article leaves much to be desired, but while [[WP:TNT]] is sometimes a persuasive argument, AfD is ultimately not meant for cleanup. Sockpuppetry can be dealt with via protection; editors pushing a fringe POV need to be dealt with at ANI or elsewhere. Deletion is not a solution for our difficulties in producing neutral content. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 13:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

To summarize, some anti–low-carb individual proposed the deletion.  The discussion was opened per Wikipedia policy.  A sock puppet and some agenda-pushers were quickly found out and their comments in the discussion were disregarded.  The issue of Ravnskov being a fringe theorist was ruled irrelevant.  The article was retained because Ravnskov was deemed to meet Wikipedia's notability criterion on the basis of his citation record. 

Sorry, but there was no conspiracy among Wikipedia editors against LCHF "leaders."


It isn't just articles that are deleted, it is entire biographies.  Here is one:

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2018/12/18/wikipedia-a-parable-for-our-times/


You have no idea what you are talking about.
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2091
Re: Episode #731
« Reply #40 on: July 15, 2019, 06:31:29 AM »
I just heard, and confirmed myself, that wikipedia has removed some very prominent LCHF leaders from their pages.

Only cults have ‘leaders.’  If LCHF diets were rational, they’d have proponents, publishing evidence.

BS, even Scouts have "leaders".  As for evidence, those people have published in peer review journals like the BMJ and write entire books on health and nutrition... as well as teaching at universities, lecturing at conferences, doing surgery and practicing medicine.

Who is behind black listing these people?  No doubt there are others in entirely seperate fields that have also been blacklisted.

The Scouts are a cult too.  You keep on making my case.  And anyway, getting published in peer reviewed journals doesn’t mean the work is correct.  It just means that it’s not obviously wrong.  Proselytising for LCHF diets doesn’t entitle a person to a Wikipedia article.  Perhaps you might care to list the people who have been ‘blacklisted’ for others to consider whether they’re entitled to an article?
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline Rai

  • PIZZASAURUS
  • Global Moderator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 7099
Re: Episode #731
« Reply #41 on: July 15, 2019, 10:11:07 AM »
Moderator Comment If anyone is not sure about whether posting racist hate speech is allowed around these parts, I can recommend reading this fine piece of writing called "The Rules"

Offline The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *****
  • Posts: 8043
Re: Episode #731
« Reply #42 on: July 15, 2019, 10:46:05 AM »
I read the deletion debate for the Malcolm Kendrick page carefully and, although there were a few who made bad arguments for deletion based on the opinions of the author (and many who made similar arguments against deletion), the ultimate decision was clearly made on the basis of notability: there just weren’t enough reliable sources about the man to meet wp:notability. The article was a stub that couldn’t be expanded based on reliable secondary sources.

Note that that can change; if secondary sources start talking about Dr. Malcolm Kenrdick the person, he may become notable enough for a well-sourced article to be written.
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline seamas

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2519
Re: Episode #731
« Reply #43 on: July 15, 2019, 12:40:01 PM »
We don't need to murder them.

We just need to encourage them to kill themselves with quack medicine.

It's win/win and we get to keep our hands clean.

They won't be just killing themselves. They will be killing their children.

And people becoming misinformed is hardly a reason to wish death upon them.

There's no such thing as denial.

Offline stands2reason

  • Empiricist, Positivist, Militant Agnostic
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10746
Re: Episode #731
« Reply #44 on: July 15, 2019, 12:57:48 PM »
We don't need to murder them.

We just need to encourage them to kill themselves with quack medicine.

It's win/win and we get to keep our hands clean.

They won't be just killing themselves. They will be killing their children.

And people becoming misinformed is hardly a reason to wish death upon them.



Actually, if you think about it, the rational alt-med peddlers are the ones selling nonsense that can't kill you (e.g. uncontaminated homeopathy), because they want to keep their customers. Presumably, on the other hand, the people selling MMS, for example, have utter disdain for their customers. If anything, what GH suggests is probably what the people behind MMS actually believe.

 

personate-rain